[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
It is the trap of what Dawkins' called "greedy reductionism". The namespace as mechanism was devised for production disambiguation, nothing more. At the level of the infoSet, that is all it does. But if you step up a level, to the instance using the infoSet, you can assume the instance has a "meaning" to someone or something and if you consider that instance to be co-eval with the namespace, the namespace has "meaning". URIs aren't designed to be namespace identifiers per se. They are co-opted into that as a side effect of their uniqueness. Over time, that secondary function could come to be the dominant use that drives their evolution, but that is unknown at this time. For now, they are a system feature invading the information ecology of the message because their is a niche in the medium the message inhabits which they can fill. Reductionism of the email to phosphors tells you much about how CRTs work, but doesn't uncover the message in the mail. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] I think we're just arguing semantics here... :-P I'm sure there are all sorts of pass-thru functions that couldn't care less about the semantics but only about the associations of names/namespaces, but ultimately the name/namespace pairs have a meaning to some process (human or machine) somewhere. Where it gets that meaning from I have no clue, I just know it has to exist. How could it not?
|
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
|