Chuck,
I can see what you're saying and agree with it. I was just using
intention differently than you do - as a state rather than an operation.
When I see a noun like 'intention' I think of a thing (state) rather
than a process.
Terminology aside, tho, I do agree.
Cheers.
Fil
Charles Burnette wrote:
> [...]
> I view intention as a "dynamic reasoning agent" (to use your language).
> Plans, proposals specifications, artifacts, etc are "content" or "formal
> states" that express an intention at some point in time when one seeks to
> apprehend, express or communicate it. I think your use of "intention"
> confounds "operation" and "state". You need other terms for the state that
> you use to capture and objectify an otherwise unresolved process.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|