And linking my more comprehensive response to Matt, to Magnus' points. "Meta" is a very very important concept here. (I would not limit it to "categories" - but any kind of "information about information" - "knowledge about knowledge" - "metaphysics about metaphysics".)
In fact Caryl Johnson (?) uses "Meta-Quality" as her blog title. She gets it. MoQ is good because it is a meta-metaphysics. It models itself (as I said in my earlier explanation). It's not so much a metaphysic, as a source of good metaphysic(s). A good source of ever better quality. Ian On 2/29/08, Magnus Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Craig > > > If you have an address book, the metadata is THE CATEGORIES OF > > 'name','address', 'phone' and 'email'. > > Feel free to be more specific, but I think all realized what I meant. But one > could also interpret your version as nouns, since noun is the category of the > words listed. > > But you have a point. It's hard to express these sort of things without > leaving > it open for interpretation. > > > I don't see the distinction between adding a new category to > > "ourunderstanding/model of the metaphysics" > > & adding one to "the metaphysics itself". (Compare, "understanding a word" > > with "understanding > > the meaning of a word".) > > Updating our model would rather be like updating our map of the moon after > taking photographs of the far side. > > Magnus > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
