Re: Fried Parrot Intestines in my XML Soup

David G. Durand wrote:

> FPIs are a social discipline for naming, independent of mechanisms. Your
> "c" syntax is also an acceptable mechanism for FPIs. FPIS are _NOT_ about
> mechanism.

Correct.  Another way to say it is, naming depends on policy for process
and enforcement of process.

That is, play by the rules, it works.  Else, results are error or
undefined.
 
> >We have focussed in very closely on FPIs, but I don't think we've
> >talked enough about what problems we are trying to solve.
> 
> Persistent, globally-unique, resolution mechanism-independent identifiers
> for internet resources, for use in XML documents.

Hmm, and other sources.  The local disk is where 
most action takes place.  However, should the XML system know 
the difference?  NOTE, as soon as we start talking system, we 
are talking mechanism, and resolution mechanisms are always, system.
A good aspect of the HyTime work on locators was in classifying the
types 
of resolvers by the information they need.
 
> It shows that some people don't understand the difference between names and
> locations, nothing more. Read the URN group logs. There is no solution to
> this argument, either you agree to let the "namers" have their "harmless
> games" or they lose capabilities that they depend on and you don't believe
> in. I'm sorry, but there's not much more to it, once we have agreed to
> forswear philosophy.

Quite so.  Besides, those "harmless games" are the way they organize 
indexes.   Reference designators are spatially organized "names" 
(morphologies), but if you take them away, the airplane falls out 
of the sky because they are used to locate parts/components, and 
the writers are trained to apply them.  So game or no, everyone plays.
 

> hierarchical authority-based name assignment (like FPIs) is the easiest
> name-assignment discipline to implement.

And best matches the way humans work.  Remember them?
 
> Why not FPIs, they already exist, and are compatible, etc.??
> 
>    -- David, who cannot believe he is having this same discussion again.

It is had every time someone sits down to organize or design a
hypermedia 
language.  It is fundamental. (I think I learned that from a book 
with your name on it, David.)

The reason is, James Clark says it is too hard to implement.  Given this 
discussion, does he still hold to that opinion as technical lead 
of the ERB which must draft language and vote on this?

We need to get to independent links and locator types.
The work I do in technical manuals suggests to me we 
need these badly and will implement them anyway in some 
form because they make it much simpler to express and 
maintain relationships external to the document about 
the use of a multimedia aggregate.

We have to talk about HyTime:  The Concepts.
Regardless of the IETF drafts, that is the ISO standard
for linking and locating.  I don't say we have to 
accept it as is, but at this juncture we have to 
talk about it.

len bullard

Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 19:28:19 UTC