RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)

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

The domain/URI match guaranteed string uniqueness 
in the context of the Internet. 
It is a convenient solution.  

The URI is meaningless in the spec, 
but in common use, it's an address 
with a protocol morph.  One could 
debate which of these is more 
artificial but common practice 
and common sense have shown the 
spec to be the more artificial 
of the definitions.  It's a locator. 
It's like having a dictionary that 
says "means this" but the humans 
"mean that" and over time, the dictionary 
becomes a relic.

Appeal to the spec begs the case.  System constraints  
are making way into the information 
The hidden properties belong 
to the implementation yet cannot be 
disposed of without explicitly putting 
them in the document. 

It is a common problem in large relational 
systems too.  I don't know if it is 
completely possible to create a large 
system where this doesn't happen. 

The big issue is what a URI means with 
regards to the ownership of the definition 
of the information it identifies.  That 
comes back to the original thread topic 
where yes (despite claims to the contrary), 
the URI may be the assertion of the Copyright 
that sticks (hostile assertion of domain).

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]

>      If it 
> turns blue and is clickable, it's a control, 
> not an identifier.
> 
> Of course, hidden in a structure where I 
> can't click on it, it can be whatever that 
> structure allows.

Proving my point.  Interpret in the context
of whatever strange XML tool you're
talking about, it turns into a control.  But
in the context of, say, XML specs, there
is no such ability to click.  It's that tool
which has interpreted the URI, in this
case incorrectly as a link.  There's no
intrinsic meaning to any identifier.