[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Or admit that there is actually only ONE way to link on the WWW:
>
>someProtocolMorphToKickOffAFunction://
somethingOneHopesIsWhereItIsSupposedTo
>BeWhenFunctionFires
>
> ^ ^
> | |
>
> The Computer Science Part The Social Behavior Part
Sort of. I'm not thrilled with URIs as the one true identifier for the
Web either, though I think we're in roughly the same place on that. I
don't think identification and linking are the same, but I agree with
your next sentence thoroughly.
>Everything else is application semantics. It is
>the application semantics that don't mesh although one
>can make that happen by the same acts that influence
>norms of social behavior just as the link design is
>imposed top down.
I'm not sure that using norms is going to be effective in this case.
There seems to be a trend lately where "norm" is defined by
"organization and vendor preference", not "quality of work". That's
caused enormous pain on the schema side and created messes I expect
we'll still be cleaning in twenty years (when we finally have to replace
the schema-based systems no one wanted to touch). Fortunately, that
hasn't worked for XLink.
>There is no reason XLink won't work. It is a matter
>of persuasion. So far, no persuasion has been effective.
>As I said earlier, that is because there are easier ways
>that only depend on different scales of local control.
I think you have something here, though again I think you're talking
about means of social control rather than technology. You're suggesting
local persuasion; I'm suggesting local development. In the absence of
effective persuasion for XLink I expect the latter will happen anyway.
|
