OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Draft US Government policyon XML Namespaces

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

It's a placeholder; the notion of notions is 
an empty set.  It confound expression because 
it has no detail, no addressable object that 
would violate the unity.  So like trying to 
touch one's left elbow with the left hand, 
trying to add detail breaks the system.

The idea is sound; decorating it religiously 
is not.  That is what makes namespaces problematic. 
some seem to think (and that paper says) that we 
use them to indicate semantics.  Ok insofar as 
something attached, but not the sign.  A URN as a sign 
is a strong sign; it means, "you must manage this 
to use it".  A URL says "the thing at this location 
must be managed".   One can indeed unify those but 
only if it is acknowledged that this is assent to 
management within a single system.  It isn't wrong; 
it is the essence of the contract.  Agreeing to 
use zero as a set placeholder is an agreement to 
the design of the set.

In Sowa's work, the empty set is the root of all 
other theories.  This is mechanical; not spiritual. 
He expresses it as a lattice of lattices.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hunting [mailto:shunting@etopicality.com]

Yes, but why is Zero necessary for theories? I'm serious! It seemed to me
that Len's posting was such a vivid and concise expression of a pwoerful
idea ... If only I udnerstood the idea!


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS