RE: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

No.  Homophily.

It creates/is-oft-noted as localization.  I am copying this back to the 
big list to save myself some repetition.

There isn't a general solution to the problem of semantic drift; there is
observable characteristic of homophily where localization (network distance)

tends to conserve the set members (Hamiltonian rather than 'strange' 
in the dynamic).  Of course, if one asserts that the namespace URI
the set/collection rather than the process/action/policy of the collector, 
the system is not dynamic.  One can chain the observers by degree (ie, a 
cybernetic control solution) if the cost is sustainable.  TimBL and I 
had this discussion during the http range wars.

It comes down to the value of keeping the namespace stable vs letting it
drift, but 
while there are good local solutions, none are globally perfect (don't
settle into a 
Nash equilibrium globally because some are contextual (local) or of type 
RPS (rock paper scissors) and therefore, chaotic by nature).  The best 
the W3C can do is what it does; resort to a second order cybernetic 
solution and set the meta-policy that the WG for the vocabulary must 
publish a maintenance policy.  For really critical systems, higher order 
controls (say governments, trading partners) can mandate maintenance
policies and validation 

It is usually a bad strategy to assume a namespace won't change.  Chaos is 
the engine of evolution.  The principle of rationality is a weak predictor 
of human behavior, and as it turns out, certain kinds of games.


-----Original Message-----
From: Walden Mathews []
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:49 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

Did you mean "homophyly"?

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 22:30:15 UTC