Re: Namespaces, schemas, and scholasticism (was RE: Namespaces,sch emas, Simon's filters.)

[Peter Piatko <piatko@research.telcordia.com>]

As any reasonable spiritual philosophy and half decent sci-fi/fantasy book
will tell you, a "name" is a very powerful thing.  Just (re)read George
Orwell's "1984" if you don't believe me.

Since this conversation is all about names I don't think we're quite to the
point of counting angels.  Not yet, anyway.  ;-)

Thanks,

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:02 PM
Subject: Namespaces, schemas, and scholasticism (was RE: Namespaces, sch
emas, Simon's filters.)


>
>
> >
> > >Right or wrong, that's what the spec says. So either XML
> > Schema is wrong, or XML Namespaces is wrong.
> >
> > No, it's just that the term "element type" as used in the namespaces
> > spec does not mean the same as the type of an element in the XML
> > Schema sense.
>
>
>
> I've been trying to remember what this thread reminds me of ... then it
> occurred to me: Medieval theology.
>
> >From http://www.encyclopedia.com/printablenew/11569.html
>
> "scholasticism, philosophy and theology of Western Christendom in the
Middle
> Ages.The beginning of scholasticism can be identified in the methods used
by
> civil and canon lawyers of the 11th and 12th cent. to reconcile seemingly
> contradictory statements."
>
> from http://members.aol.com/Philosdog/Scholasticism.html
>
> "The disputes [the Scholastics] entered into often seem like pedantic
> hairsplitting, futile word games, or even downright incomprehensible
> nonsense to most everyone today. Scholasticism thus has a deservedly "bad
> name", and has been continuously and justly ridiculed ever since Rabelais
> first did so in the
> 1500's. One of the favorite things to ridicule is the supposed debate
among
> the
> Scholastics on the question of "How many angels can dance on the head of a
> pin?"...
>
> And in fact, some of the Scholastics, such as Aquinas, did dance quite
> close to the precise question, as this little taste from his "Summa
> Theologiae" shows:
> Q. 52, a. 3 - "Whether Several Angels Can Be At The Same Time In the
>     Same Place? There are not two angels in the same place. The reason
>     for this is because it is impossible for two complete causes to be
>     immediately the causes of one and the same thing. This is evident in
>     every class of causes. For there is one proximate form of one thing,
>     and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote
>     movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a
boat,
>     since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength
>     is sufficient for moving the boat; the fact is rather that all
together
>     are as one mover, in so far as their united powers all combine in
>     producing the one movement. Hence, since the angel is said to be in
one
>     place by the fact that his power touches the place immediately by way
>     of a perfect container, as was said (Q. 52, a. 1) there can be but one
>     angel in one place."  "
>
>
>
> And guess who drove the last nail into the coffin of Scholasticism?  Our
old
> friend William of Occam, they guy whose philosophy of minimalism is
> enshrined as "Occam's Razor", and who some credit with setting the stage
for
> the Renaissance by separating questions of faith from issues that can be
> addressed by reason.
>
> Perhaps there's a message for the XML world here ...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>