[AgileWiki] Norm, some thoughts on inherited namespace vs classifiers

[Bill La F. <Wil...@Su...>]

Norm, I really like analogies when reasoning about classifiers.

Now in Java programming, namespace is inherited two different ways, 
depending on granularity:

   1. At the module level, only classifiers (include statements) and
      full path names are used.
   2. Within a module, a nested block inherits (structurally) from the
      blocks it is embeded in.

Now lets look at books. Again, I find the use of classifiers depends on 
granularity:

   1. A book takes no context from where it is located. Reshelving a
      book in a library has little impact on its content.
   2. Within a book, a chapter takes its general context from the book,
      a section has the context of the chapter, etc.

So I'm thinking we can apply the same approach to the Ark:

   1. Topics (Ark, Cabinets, Drawers, Folders and Pages) should mostly
      use explict classifiers for defining their namespace. Reorganizing
      topics should not be difficult. Whereas dependencies on where a
      topic is located would greatly reduce the agility of the whole system.
   2. Ledger Sections, while able to take advantage of classifiers to
      extend their namespace, largely depend on the structure they are
      in for their context and namespace.

As I've always said, people tend to overlook the impact of granularity. 
Things work different at different levels of granularity--with fine 
granularity weak forces tend to dominate, while strong forces dominate 
the larger levels of granularity. (If I may borrow so blithly from physics!)

Bill

And have you ever calculated the gravitational forces attracting two 
neutrons in an area the size of an atomic nucleus? Perhaps dark matter 
simply lacks electrons and protons? :-)