[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Isn't an architectural form a means to
establish a reference group that uses a
set of overlapping but distinct vocabularies?
Let's not go there too far, but it is
something to keep me awake nights. Joshua
says he has been thinking about this lately,
but for me, it is my oldest nightmare about
the use of worldwide hypermedia systems,
the misshapen face of the machine enabled
to govern. urrrrk...
Anywho...don't AFs use addresses, hyperlinks and
metadata?
I can't seem to escape the attractor
that some of what we need is buried in
the old standards. If archforms were
tied to notations as Steve says they
orignally were, didn't use PIs, and
did use URIs, would we get essentially
what Cowan is proposing for AFNGs?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
"Ontological communities are a fact of life and
in fact, one way to deduce that some person or
thing is a member of a reference group is to
check the vocabulary usage."
C. L. Bullard
Big companies cannot standardize that out of existence. It is a fact of
the universe, of humanity. RPC can make a thin layer of standardization
which then gives rise to the same ontological mess at the next level
(okay, I got your business document through an RPC call. Now what?). I
assert without evidence that addresses, hyperlinks and metadata are part
of the solution...that they can be a unifying force. As long as the RPC
world has no equivalent then it has no such unifying force. I suspect
that it will eventually fall back on the Semantic Web to clean it up.
|
