[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace wit

• To: 'Uche Ogbuji' <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 16:36:46 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Actually, the potential for infinite signfieds given a sign 
never seems to occur in practice.   Semioticians puzzled 
over that one awhile and discovered that communities of 
interpretation with preferred readings always emerge to 
limit that infinity.  signfied+ or signified* is just 
a notation for a code picklist.

That infinity is an artifact of our specification language; 
trying to abstract identity from identification processes. 
If the URI is always dereferenceable, eg, note that if the 
string is given as a value to a resolver, it will resolve, 
then the only thing one has to say is that content developers 
should decide up front if 404 is acceptable.   In practice, 
that works.  In theory, it simply means the theory produces 
an ambiguity.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...]

I would argue that since signifiers in re already bring an infinite potential 
for confusion, that adding another infinite potential has no discernable 
effect.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce with James Clark)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Next by Date: RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce with James Clark)
• Next by thread: RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce with James Clark)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread