[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
W. E. Perry scripsit:
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> > The trouble with "the data instances which they have actually got" is that they may
> > represent an undersample of the actual data to be received during the life of the
> > application.
>
> Granted. My argument, though, is that an application presented with an ostensible input data
> instance need not be concerned at all with the full range of input data which it might be
> presented, but only with whether, from this instance, it can instantiate in accord with its
> internal data structure the data which it requires to execute a single instance of its
> processing.
Fair enough. But when designing such an application, it helps to know
what might be in the Lindasphere.
> As 'statute' here is analogous to schema, or other a priori agreement or data input contract,
No, not at all. Statute interpretation is not the *primary* function of
judges (which is to make judgements in "actual case[s] or controvers[ies]",
as the U.S. Constitution says), but it is a function. When interpreting
a statute, the judge attempts to understand what it means, but "what it
means" is not always plain on the face of the statute, so appeals to
Congressional intent as shown in the record of how the statute was passed
are common.
> Agreed, except that what I am talking about are applications designed so that they do not
> agree to respect (that is, perform in an expected way upon the presentation of) data instances
> respecting particular constraints.
Every application must respect some constraints, otherwise it would be
able to do everything with anything.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
-- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
|
