tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post7084058703900215701..comments2010-02-02T03:00:55.164+01:00Bernard Vatanthttps://profiles.google.com/114406186864069390644noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post-81448997342341914442010-02-02T03:00:55.164+01:002010-02-02T03:00:55.164+01:00So Bernard, in other words the URI rather than being a class or factory is in fact an instance, with no class (it was not branched from some parent, nor reproduced from some pattern) rather the pattern or class is an emergent property, only existing in the mind of the perceiver, subject to disagreement, messy, organic, like life, structure after the fact rather than schema in advanceKurthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02611172077429170203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7979481.post-91705806613933517182009-07-31T03:18:11.726+02:002009-07-31T03:18:11.726+02:00Great observation. I suspect the answer to these things is to let go of the URI as the defining identifier, and come to terms with some form of identity proxy (ala TMRM) being the defacto way to create subject identity. Of course, this requires us all to think beyond the simplicity of the URI ... but I&#39;m sure you can have virtual URIs pointing to identity proxies (and seems like a practical solution, no?).<br /><br />Not sure how to a) go about explain such a solution, nor b) where to express it to make some waves.Alexander Johannesenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10613480150660825848noreply@blogger.com