Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes: >Or admit that there is actually only ONE way to link on the WWW: > >someProtocolMorphToKickOffAFunction:// somethingOneHopesIsWhereItIsSupposedTo >BeWhenFunctionFires > > ^ ^ > | | > > The Computer Science Part The Social Behavior Part Sort of. I'm not thrilled with URIs as the one true identifier for the Web either, though I think we're in roughly the same place on that. I don't think identification and linking are the same, but I agree with your next sentence thoroughly. >Everything else is application semantics. It is >the application semantics that don't mesh although one >can make that happen by the same acts that influence >norms of social behavior just as the link design is >imposed top down. I'm not sure that using norms is going to be effective in this case. There seems to be a trend lately where "norm" is defined by "organization and vendor preference", not "quality of work". That's caused enormous pain on the schema side and created messes I expect we'll still be cleaning in twenty years (when we finally have to replace the schema-based systems no one wanted to touch). Fortunately, that hasn't worked for XLink. >There is no reason XLink won't work. It is a matter >of persuasion. So far, no persuasion has been effective. >As I said earlier, that is because there are easier ways >that only depend on different scales of local control. I think you have something here, though again I think you're talking about means of social control rather than technology. You're suggesting local persuasion; I'm suggesting local development. In the absence of effective persuasion for XLink I expect the latter will happen anyway.
|
