[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
version compare and partial orgls
- To: <mark>
- Subject: version compare and partial orgls
- From: Eric Dean Tribble <tribble>
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 20:01:52 PDT
- Cc: <us>
- In-reply-to: <MarkS.Miller'smessageofFri>,20 PDT <8909020409.AA12955@xxxxxxxxxx>
I'm going to respond to this stuff piecemeal.
There is no *one true identity*. There is the canonical identity,
which is a somewhat weaker notion. It provides the same power,
however, and correctly maps to the semantics of sharing-inform and the
idea of "best knowledge."
Quite correct, there is no one true identity. However, as being
sharing-informed is a monotonic process, one is getting better and
better notions of identity. Therefore it is an interesting (but
perhaps confusing) rhetorical device to speak of the true identity as
the goal which the successive EAddresses of a DataObject approach but
never reach. Alternatively, one can think of the true identity as the
last canonical EAddress a given DataObject will ever have (at the end
of time or some such). Given this, one can define freezing a
DataStamp wrt sharing-inform: It is when you make an irrevocable
commitment never to further sharing-inform the DataStamp (to do this,
you mush have grabbed it). Once this is done, you know that the
current canonical identity is the true identity.
Canonical identity is MUCH weaker than true identity: Canonical
identity is defined wrt currently & locally available knowledge. True
identity is defined wrt knowledge which is omniscient across all time
and space. (The kind of knowledge that the basic agent of standard
economic theory is assumed to have. Where can we hire one?)
I strongly dislike linguistic abstractions that can't be represented or
achieved. Especially now that we agree that freezing doesn't affect
sharing-informability, the notion of *true* identity is at best
distracting. We can't represent it, it adds no useful insights as an
analogy, and I think it is sufficiently opposed to what is really
possible in a distributed system that it prevents us from considering
the issues of DataObject identity correctly in the distributed
context. I suppose the case isn't quite as strong as I'm making it,
but....
dean