Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 16:01 Europe/Berlin, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > A namespace can name and can even locate implementations. Or it > can indirectly identify them via RDF, RDDL, etc. Or it can punt > to the local registry. Combinations such as are used in an > aggregate document type require a means to aggregate namespaces. > We do that in the documents now, sometimes by ganging them into > the root. My intuition is that over time, we discover that only > certain known combinations are showing up in the roots. > ... > >> if i need to indemnify someone, i am prepared to do it based only on a >> standard which specifies the intended effect of particular >> combinations >> of particular symbols. for one thing, it requires less reformulation >> in >> the implementation in a adequately expressive programming language. >> for >> another i can expect the implementation to be more stable over time. > > ... >> it does not matter to me how the standard is named. > > But we have these namespace thingies. It seems to be > yet another "it's in the way that you use it" proposition, > and that is the essence of symbol grounding. > > naming the set of symbols is meaningless. one has to name the combinations. by which i do not mean the sequencing, dominance, and lexical constraints one can express in a document definition. a system which a-priori names the combinations according to the name used to disambiguate one of the respective lexical tokens is going to be a dead end. what does one do with versions? with variations in authority? what does one call it when it's a soap wrapper only, and a particular payload only, and in combination only? etc. ...
|
