[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I realize that but may not be getting exactly what you
are saying. Part of the problem is precisely, which
combinations are meaningful and I would expect that
to be down to the level of elements at least, although
practically, we usually deal with namespaces as
larger collections, typically, whole languages. Yes,
versions have to be managed. That is an issue for the
standard. How do they handle versions now? Different
means from namespaces to version attributes, and so on.
Again, I'm not trying to work the problem of natural
language symbol grounding, only artificial languages
with bounded constraints, not open ended at the extremes.
len
From: james anderson [mailto:james.anderson@setf.de]
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 18:41 Europe/Berlin, Bullard, Claude L
(Len) wrote:
> Isn't that why some have suggested dereferencing the namespace
> to RDF or RDDL documents? In other words, there are those
> pursuing solutions to this. The fact that the name might
> serve a dual role (lexical disambiguation and named
> location) seems to work. Why not?
>
because context matters. not just what's at the root or what's in the
box.
it's the same problem as delegated authentication. it just has more
levels.
|
