[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mar 10, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Bullard, Claude L ((Len)) wrote:
> True for the global network. False for particular
> information flowing at particular times in particular
> contexts.
"Particular context" sounds to me very much like a frame of
evaluation == local processing. Even in closed systems involving only
a few machine, only one system at a given time has a complete
understanding of it's local processing context. The degree of
variance in interpretation will likely be less than in open systems
however.
I think it's fairly well understood that in general, loose coupling,
is a good thing (not always, but usually). I think this "rule" (which
I agree is a bogus term for it) is just a common sense design
principal that is similar in nature to the principle of loose
coupling... basically, it just says, wherever possible, make it easy
to process the data you generate, and declare behaviours in a way
amenable to analysis. Something similar can be found in "The Art of
Programming" (I think chapter 7, might be wrong), where they say
"encode your data in text wherever you can"...
Maybe I'm just of of the few people that finds embedded scripts, and
things like DHTML, abhorrent for the most part.
> But the lesson is
> that unconstrainable use of a global identifier in a
> system that is quick to grant privileges and slow to
> revoke them is a bad thing.
This is really orthogonal to the issue of maximising the ability to
analyse and reuse data.
> Another way to think about this: if data is marked
> correctly with regards as to operations that can
> be performed on it, then the object can acquire
> rights from the governing environment or have them
> revoked.
Controlling capabilities is again, orthogonal to the ability to
analyse/reuse data because it implies some global means of control
that may or may not exist. You can declare what is valid on the
object as much as you like, but ultimately, I will decide what to do
with the bits on my box, unless we are bound by the same controlling
mechanism. The likelihood of that every occurring is so low that
you'd best keep your skeletons in your own closet, with the door
firmly locked.
|
