W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony]

From: John Robert Gardner <jrgardn@emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
cc: connolly@w3.org, xml-dev@xml.org, xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10005181154130.7663-100000@jet.cc.emory.edu>
On Thu, 18 May 2000, David Carlisle wrote:

> > We have documented this since Feb '98, when XML 1.0 became
> > a recommendation despite the lack of namespace support:
> >     --http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-webarch-extlang-19980210#Evolving
>
> One would have assumed though that a later REC would supersede any
> comments in an early NOTE. The description of namespace that you quote

In a syntactic, but not semantic sense.  This line of argument presumes no
judicatory relevance in dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices.

> there may have been the intention at the time (and clearly is what you
> wish namespaces had become) but it is nothing like the concept of
> namespace defined in the namespace rec.

A fundamental construct of meaning is the evolved history implicit (even
if not explicit ==> string viz. e.g., semantic pointer) in a "name" or,
"semantic instance," cf. the Oxford English Dictionary, voluminous based
upon its meticulous attention to evolved versioning in meaning.

The tapestry of meaning unravells when only the "final canon" is taken as
valid . . . meaning is ontologically backward compatible.  Foucault,
Spivak, et al note this well in the extemely important contribution to
narrative and, by implication, semantic content with the notion of the
import of "subaltern" readings (check the OED on that term, viz. this
URI/Namespaces issue, it offers useful conceptual perspectives).

respectfully,
JohnRobert Gardner

>
> David

> This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
> To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
> List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> ***************************************************************************
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 12:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC