RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic principle

["Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>]

One sees these terms in discussions of semiotics and legal theory.  See
NORMA.

The Evolution of Organisational Semiotics  www.orgsem.org/papers/00.pdf

I've seen it and used it paired as "norms and affordances" also called
"clica".  If anyone has a better general term, now is the time to use
it.

A few years ago we were discussing it in relation to the problem of
rights to operations that needed to be transferable among virtual
worlds. This is now identity sharing or how Google can make use of
Google+ without actually beating Facebook in the market.  Notice the
problem of having these available without regard to implementation or
propriety.  IOW, the affordance becomes a property right for a class as
that class moves among domains (which is why legal theorists use it).

"A topic not discussed here as far as I can remember is how
one can acquire affordances (operation rights) that transfer
among worlds in accordance with the norms (cultural constraints)
of a world.  IOW, analogous to single sign on for other network
apps, a means to share identity and ownership to enable rights
regardless of the server owner or vendor."


http://www.web3d.org/x3d/publiclists/x3dpublic_list_archives/0604/msg000
75.html

In that case, the affordance had to be legally established given the
problems of mixing children with adults in VR.  In this case, it can be
a means to enable hyperlinking among XML applications without the need
to use downtranslation.  In VR worlds this wasn't as easy given the
complexity of the potential behaviors and rights management.

The king has clothes.  You are not his subject.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:13 AM
To: Michael Kay; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basic
principles of ...


>>   The term "affordances" is interesting but I can't seem to figure
out what it really means

> I think it's mainly interesting as an example of a social phenomenon
whereby the enlightened invent specialist 
> vocabulary explicitly to prevent the unenlightened joining the
conversation.


Whew, and I was afraid to say the kind was naked too ....

Reminds me of a chat I had 15 years ago with a friend who has a PhD in
Chaos Physics.
He was showing me this paper and I read part of it then gave it back and
said "This is full of it, 
nobody could understand any of this I doubt even the author does" ... 
And he admitted what was my underlying belief ... that one way of making
publishable papers in esoteric sciences
is to make it so complicated no one can admit they dont have a clue what
you're talking about.