[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathan said:
So if your namespace name resolved to a porn site, as in your example,
I'd
say that this is a _contradiction_. The user of the namespace, i.e. the
user
and/or creator of the XML document is asserting that the namespace URI
identifies a namespace. The owner of the URI is asserting that the URI
represents a porn site. I assert that namespace names and porn sites are
disjoint, hence the contradiction.Contradictions don't give us a logical
problem, they are just wrong. '3 = 2' is wrong that's all.
Didier replies:
If we set as an axiom that both the URI and the porn site are disjoint
sets, they are. However, if some curious fellow enters the URI (in that
special case a URL) in a browser and get to a porn site, from the human
and cognitive point of view I just create confusion since the poor
fellow will try to resolve the cognitive dissonance between these two
disjoint sets. I wont say like Gregory Bateson that this would lead to
some pathological state caused by a double bind but I would, at least,
say that our fellow will be confused. I think that people will relate
the URI and the vocabulary identified by the namespace reference. The
URI, standalone, convey some information. If that latter is used for
other purpose like, for instance, URLs used to retrieve information with
a browser, well constituted human being will tend to resolve the
relationship between the URI and what it represents. In my own opinion
and common sense, the URI and what is represented by it are closely
linked (from the psychological point of view and our natural tendency to
find closure and meaning)
I thought that one advantage of XML is that human can read it and make
deduction about its purpose. I am not convinced that the actual usage of
URI in the context of RDF and namespaces makes these documents more
readable.
We have to be very cautious with our choice of axioms.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
