[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:09:13 -0500
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
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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?