[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That's why communications which require discipline to be reliable
cite authorities (what governs or dominates the communication
by consent). Very simple, really, until one gets down to
the politics of that, and then one discovers ruthless force.
Computers don't care about authorities or semantics.
Ummm.... the scene in The Holy Grail where Michael Palin
manages to piss off King Arthur with the discussion of
collectives.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Miles Sabin [mailto:msabin@interx.com]
Who cares what the owner means. There's nothing to stop anyone else
using that very same URI to mean something else. That's why URIs can't
on their own convey meaning. To get that you need semantic agreement
between the producers and the consumers of the URIs.
Note what's doing the work here: the agreement, not any form of
administrative control over any resource on the end of the URI. If
enough people choose to interpret,
http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/01/Bricks/
as "denoting the class of people who don't have a firm grip on the
concept of naming", then that's what it means (for them) no matter
what Mark might think. That's not in and of itself a problem, but it
could be, eg. if Mark wanted to start talking to one of that group
about bricks.
|
