Taxonomy of Facets & Composites

[Tyler Close]

Markm wrote:
> At 05:48 AM 7/30/00 , Tyler Close wrote:
> >I believe Markm's sole purpose in establishing the "law of physics"
> >layer is to come up with names and definitions for the circles and
> >lines in the Granovetter diagram. This layer of abstraction must be
> >the "law of physics" layer, since actions that cannot be
> described by
> >composition of the Granovetter operator must not be possible in a
> >capability system.
>
> I endorse Tyler's interpretation of what I'm trying to say
> (thanks Tyler!) but with two quibbles.
>
> 1) "sole" above seems too strong.  Let's say "main" purpose.
>
> 2) The Granovetter diagram doesn't by itself communicate
> the entirety of the
> foundational concepts I'm trying to map all capability
> systems in to.  The
> diagram combined with a) at least the local naming
> perspective of the lambda
> calculus, which is shared by the treatment of clist indexes
> in capability
> OSes http://www.mediacity.com/~norm/CapTheory/NaP.html ,
> and b) with some
> adequately local notion of side effects.  I don't know how
> to define
> "adequately local", but I know that Actors/Joule/CLP,
> KeyKOS/EROS, and E/W7
> all qualify.

E the language is just a way of expressing compositions of the
Granovetter operator. Is it reasonable to expect that if we can
understand all capability systems in terms of the Granovetter operator
that E the language could be used to script them? If so, then the
style of the E language (lexical scoping) does not belong in a
taxonomy of capability systems, since it could be applied to all
capability systems. Perhaps a second taxonomy of 'Granovetter
composers'.

I don't get b)? Has it escaped from your head yet?

Tyler


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com