[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Wow, talk about trolling! ;-}
How about we back up to: why do we care? It's those damn namespaces.
Suppose there were no namespaces. Suppose instead of namespaces, there
were only globally unique names.
Because it's simpler to use an authority than to pretend we can
calculate a globally unique name, suppose we use inverted domain names.
That is, for a registered domain "x.y", its globally unique names are
constructed with the prefix "y.x". Then we might have
"com.intergraph.bullard.len" as a globally unique name.
End of story. No namespaces. Nobody ever asks if "com.intergraph" is a
"resource", whatever that is, because it's patently obvious it isn't.
We don't need namespaces and never did. Imagine how many person-hours
would have been saved if we didn't have them. ;-}
Bob Foster
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> That's the critical observation for this and many other
> threads that rely on ontological commitment to sustain
> communications.
>
> Would anyone care to compare that to URIs as a unit of
> information:
>
> 1. Is a URI a resource?
>
> 2. If it is a resource, what operations are significant?
>
> 3. Are URIs ever ambiguous?
>
> Yes, I know: the permathread from hell.
>
> len
>
> From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@mclink.it]
>
> The writer makes choices, but a reader cannot always tell which of those
> choices (if any) convey some semantics in the intentions of the
writer and
> which do not. In other words, an XML document may contain more
information
> than the writer considers significant, but a given reader may not be
able to
> separate the non-significant part from the significant part.
|
