RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

It is the trap of what Dawkins' called "greedy reductionism". 

The namespace as mechanism was devised for production disambiguation, 
nothing more.  At the level of the infoSet, that is all it does. 
But if you step up a level, to the instance using the infoSet, you can
assume the 
instance has a "meaning" to someone or something and if you 
consider that instance to be co-eval with the namespace, 
the namespace has "meaning".   URIs aren't designed to 
be namespace identifiers per se.  They are co-opted into 
that as a side effect of their uniqueness.  
Over time, that secondary function could come to be 
the dominant use that drives their evolution, but that 
is unknown at this time.  For now, they are a system 
feature invading the information ecology of the message 
because their is a niche in the medium the message 
inhabits which they can fill.

Reductionism of the email to phosphors tells you much 
about how CRTs work, but doesn't uncover the message 
in the mail.  

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]

I think we're just arguing semantics here... :-P  I'm sure there are all
sorts of pass-thru functions that couldn't care less about the semantics but
only about the associations of names/namespaces, but ultimately the
name/namespace pairs have a meaning to some process (human or machine)
somewhere. Where it gets that meaning from I have no clue, I just know it
has to exist. How could it not?