RE: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

A pretty good one, not without similarities to the 
proof that 1=0.  All one need do is ignore soem
technical detail in some definition, and a logical
system becomes inconsistent.

That it might be another way to look at the
relationship between a container and its contents
is another story.

Certainly, the material girl would go to jail for
shoplifting if she attempted to defend putting
an extra item into a bag of groceries just purchased
with the statement that it is still a bag of groceries.

It might be the same bag, but it's definitely not
the same groceries, and even she would have to 
acknowledge the increase in material.

:-)
John



-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@expway.fr]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:14 AM
To: John Boyer
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy


John Boyer wrote:
> B is the same container in line 4 as it is in line 7, but
> B no longer contains the same collection in line 7 that it
> did in line 4.
> 
> Containers change content over time.  The collection
> is the content of the container.

There are other ways of looking at that:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Feb/0062.html


-- 
Robin Berjon
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:53:43 UTC