[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 16:01 Europe/Berlin, Bullard, Claude L
(Len) wrote:
>
> A namespace can name and can even locate implementations. Or it
> can indirectly identify them via RDF, RDDL, etc. Or it can punt
> to the local registry. Combinations such as are used in an
> aggregate document type require a means to aggregate namespaces.
> We do that in the documents now, sometimes by ganging them into
> the root. My intuition is that over time, we discover that only
> certain known combinations are showing up in the roots.
> ...
>
>> if i need to indemnify someone, i am prepared to do it based only on a
>> standard which specifies the intended effect of particular
>> combinations
>> of particular symbols. for one thing, it requires less reformulation
>> in
>> the implementation in a adequately expressive programming language.
>> for
>> another i can expect the implementation to be more stable over time.
>
> ...
>> it does not matter to me how the standard is named.
>
> But we have these namespace thingies. It seems to be
> yet another "it's in the way that you use it" proposition,
> and that is the essence of symbol grounding.
>
>
naming the set of symbols is meaningless. one has to name the
combinations. by which i do not mean the sequencing, dominance, and
lexical constraints one can express in a document definition.
a system which a-priori names the combinations according to the name
used to disambiguate one of the respective lexical tokens is going to
be a dead end.
what does one do with versions? with variations in authority? what does
one call it when it's a soap wrapper only, and a particular payload
only, and in combination only? etc.
...
|
