DM, Craig, Krim ... This is key ... I'd have no problem "agreeing a definition" for four useful working layers as positied by Pirsig, provided we don't them forget that all the other sub-layers may also exist, and that the four layers we chose in the first place were just pragmatic - based on experience to date, nothing fundamental (beyond the aspects mentioned earlier - the evolutionary axis, and the quality ontological medium.)
Ontologies are "deemed" .... never fundamental. Ian (PS I still happen to think distinct definitions of 3 and 4 are going to be difficult on the current lines .... but that's a "local difficulty") On 3/6/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DM, > I vote: > The four levels are mutually exclusive & exhaustive. > Any other way-of-dividing-the-levels (to which I see no limit) > just creates sub-levels within the original 4. > Craig > 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/
