Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I realize that but may not be getting exactly what you are saying. Part of the problem is precisely, which combinations are meaningful and I would expect that to be down to the level of elements at least, although practically, we usually deal with namespaces as larger collections, typically, whole languages. Yes, versions have to be managed. That is an issue for the standard. How do they handle versions now? Different means from namespaces to version attributes, and so on. Again, I'm not trying to work the problem of natural language symbol grounding, only artificial languages with bounded constraints, not open ended at the extremes. len From: james anderson [mailto:james.anderson@s...] On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 18:41 Europe/Berlin, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Isn't that why some have suggested dereferencing the namespace > to RDF or RDDL documents? In other words, there are those > pursuing solutions to this. The fact that the name might > serve a dual role (lexical disambiguation and named > location) seems to work. Why not? > because context matters. not just what's at the root or what's in the box. it's the same problem as delegated authentication. it just has more levels.
|
