Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Why? As a unique string to pass to a disambiguating processor in a network of typed processors, sure, but beyond that, it is a meaningless string. It is the interpretant that gives semantic and these are 1. Local and/or 2. Of a type defined by specification and shared by assent. Otherwise, URI is a booga booga used to stop sensible agreements on sharable architectures. Simon isn't wrong about the shadow thing, the unnamed because we won't agree to a definition thing. John is right that using a name in lieu of the object is how language work, and you are right that multiple representations may have the same name. Umm... that is how things work now. It only falls over when the name as unique name is considered to have a semantic value of its own right, when in fact, it is a meaningless string assigned a value in the context of the process using it. len From: Paul Brown [mailto:prb@f...] A URI needs to stand on its own.
|
