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

RE: Comparable considered necessary

• To: 'Paul Brown' <prb@f...>, "xml-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:28:33 -0500
• Cc: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

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.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: quarantining namespaces
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread