[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Why?
As a unique string to pass to a disambiguating processor
in a network of typed processors, sure, but beyond that,
it is a meaningless string. It is the interpretant that
gives semantic and these are
1. Local and/or
2. Of a type defined by specification and shared by assent.
Otherwise, URI is a booga booga used to stop sensible
agreements on sharable architectures. Simon isn't wrong
about the shadow thing, the unnamed because we won't agree
to a definition thing. John is right that using a name
in lieu of the object is how language work, and you are
right that multiple representations may have the same
name.
Umm... that is how things work now. It only falls over
when the name as unique name is considered to have a
semantic value of its own right, when in fact, it is a
meaningless string assigned a value in the context of
the process using it.
len
From: Paul Brown [mailto:prb@fivesight.com]
A URI needs to stand on its own.
|
