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

RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)

• To: 'Bob Foster' <bob@o...>
• Subject: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:13 -0500
• Cc: 'Alessandro Triglia' <sandro@m...>, xml-dev@l...

Not a troll, exactly.  It is a rehearsal.  The TAG has 
to work the http range issue.   The book I referenced a 
week or so ago gave me some ideas about this, particularly 
that some of the problems of these definitions may be 
treatable given a different logic (ie, quantum vs 
boolean logic). 

It is precisely that there are multiple spaces and this 
introduces ambiguity to terms and elements.  Why do we 
care?  Query on "Michael Jackson" and "suit".  For this 
example, say you get back a lot of articles about his 
legal woes and descriptions of his warddrobe.  That is 
an example of an ambiguous term.  It exists simultaneously 
in different semantic spaces.  As the book points out, 
search engines can use combinations of positive and 
negative terms to determine which space is 'meant'. 
It is a geometric approach to the problem.  The notions 
of information spaces suggest that a geometric space 
is a realistic approach.  Remember, the reader is blind 
to the writer.

My math stinks, so I come to the smart people with 
this idea.

len


From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@o...]

Wow, talk about trolling! ;-}

How about we back up to: why do we care? It's those damn namespaces. 
Suppose there were no namespaces. Suppose instead of namespaces, there 
were only globally unique names.

Because it's simpler to use an authority than to pretend we can 
calculate a globally unique name, suppose we use inverted domain names. 
That is, for a registered domain "x.y", its globally unique names are 
constructed with the prefix "y.x". Then we might have 
"com.intergraph.bullard.len" as a globally unique name.

End of story. No namespaces. Nobody ever asks if "com.intergraph" is a 
"resource", whatever that is, because it's patently obvious it isn't.

We don't need namespaces and never did. Imagine how many person-hours 
would have been saved if we didn't have them. ;-}

Bob Foster

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
 > That's the critical observation for this and many other
 > threads that rely on ontological commitment to sustain
 > communications.
 >
 > Would anyone care to compare that to URIs as a unit of
 > information:
 >
 > 1.  Is a URI a resource?
 >
 > 2.  If it is a resource, what operations are significant?
 >
 > 3.  Are URIs ever ambiguous?
 >
 > Yes, I know: the permathread from hell.
 >
 > len
 >
 > From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@m...]
 >
 > The writer makes choices, but a reader cannot always tell which of those
 > choices (if any) convey some semantics in the intentions of the 
writer and
 > which do not.  In other words, an XML document may contain more 
information
 > than the writer considers significant, but a given reader may not be 
able to
 > separate the non-significant part from the significant part.

• Prev by Date: Re: Processor treatment of entities
• Next by Date: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-info set)
• Previous by thread: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by thread: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-inf oset)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread