RE: RE: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
Thanks for reading the paper. It still gives me a headache. Doug Lenat hated it outright. ;-) I put it away and forgot about it. The capability of the system to use the namespaces is there already, so emergence is not stifled. Why does it need to be in the core? One problem is that controls are emergent based on engagement of two systems or communicating entities. If we push that one down a layer, do we get a benefit? We may have to decide if a namespace is as P. Stickler said, just punctuation. Masinter said, a URI is never just punctuation unless context is invoked. So either context matters and we end up with a lot of complex constraints, or a URI was the wrong beastie for namespace values and the Myth of Names and Addresses is wrong. Hey, just for noodling: if a primitive taxon is an XML production at namespace(0), that is, the namespace cannot have subordinate namespaces, is an aggregate expressed as namespace(complex number)? What implications are there for the cenospecies, ecospecies, and ecotypes? What do varying values for the complexity number have for the characteristics of self-organization, self-modification, self-maintenance, and self-transcendence? Assert: a document without namespaces is always at namespace(0) regardless of internal complexity. Component assemblies are never namespace(0). Dang. We can do a year or two on this one. len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:22 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: RE: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1 4/4/2002 2:15:09 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >What is the value of adding namespaces to the core >unless every system layer above it depends on them? "Emergent intelligence is a principle of complexity theory applied to systems evolution. . It refers to the ability of a system as it becomes complex to exhibit behaviors not possible until a set of subsystems are merged and interact." http://www.eco-online.com/pdf/infoeco.pdf [Look familiar Len? :~) ] Without subsystems to interact, you don't get emergence. What if, 10 years ago, one could get HTML separately from URLs and HTTP. "What's the value of adding URLs and HTTP ...I don't use anything in HTML that depends on it, why do I need it?" The reason is that the "emergent property" of HTML+HTTP+URL (aka "the Web") is so much more valuable than any individual piece. So, there's a dilemma: modularization and "best of breed" components are a good thing, but emergent intelligence is an even better thing. The value of namespaces as a truly universal, must have, integral part of XML is still TBD, as far as I'm concerned, but the argument would be that XML without namespaces is like HTML without HTTP. Adding namespaces to the core ensures that some new "emergent intelligence" that depends on both can thrive without anyone having to install anything. Again, I personally am somewhat skeptical of the situation in this particular case, but I definitely sympathize with the argument, with or without a concrete value proposition for today. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format