[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If, instead of matching bits on the wire, the, uh, fraternising object
models used a discovery mechanism which is good enough to encapsulate
"policy" as well as the aforementioned bits, then this discovery mechanism
might answer some of your questions. In other words, we invest the
discovery mechanism with some degree of in abstentia authority to discover
objects it trusts to use and it trusts to be used by. This "usage" is in
the legal and the mechanistic senses.
At 13/08/2003 21:34:26, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
wrote:
# From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
#
# >My annoyance is very simple: I haven't googled, but I don't think I
# remember
# >hearing you ever mention "indemnity" in this forum before about a month
# ago.
#
# It never came up before. Possibly like others, I blithely assumed that
# other companies stepped up to the same risks we do and handled them
# by similar means. Silly me. Then to inquire if XML facilities could
# offer some hope of at least caging the dragons, that is sooo off
# topic. Silly me again. Symbols have the meaning we give them.
# So far so good. Maybe those schemas should be more meaningful.
# Maybe the namespace identifiers inherited from the committees
# that write them can be more meaningful. Maybe the processes
# by which standards are written should reflect the measure of
# risk implementors must undertake. Maybe if the XML applications
# came, as some do, with object models that enable interoperation
# instead of trusting bits on the wire that are meaningless to
# do what they can't do, warranty interoperation, things would be
# better. On the other hand, maybe we should just leave all of
# that to chance. So far, that is what many have been doing, not all.
# I think we could do better, but maybe not. It takes agreement
# to make a change, or force. I am a believer in inventing the future,
# not suffering it. Silly me.
#
# >> There are no semantics in markup except what
# >> we put there in the running code. It is the
# >> relationship of the markup and what it can
# >> provide as proof and the running code which
# >> is indemnified on its own merit that we
# >> should explore. Perhaps we will discover
# >> that there are ways and means to manage the
# >> risks in common and by more honorable means
# >> than EULA and GPL.
#
# >Wow. Far out. Since I can't make any sense at all of this, I think
that's
# my
# >cue to step out of the discussion.
#
# Ok. There may be solutions. We may be a part of them. Or not.
#
# len
#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
# initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
#
# The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
#
# To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
# manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
#
Roger
|
