I talked briefly with Markm yesterday about his conversations with others about our capability concepts.
Reflecting on this later it occurred to me that we may not say, or say often enough, that capabilities must be the only naming scheme on the system level!
I went back to my glossary <http://www.mediacity.com/~norm/CapTheory/Glossary.html#What.html> and found that my brief intro could be read as allowing capabilities to be but one way of designating objects.
I changed it but I have not figured out how to say what I want without sounding overly dogmatic.
I think that we agree that all sucessful capability systems "bottom out" in capabilities as names.
"Bottoming out" is itself a slippery term for we spend much text describing how yet lower levels work to support capability function. In my brief intro I overuse the term "system" to denote those hardware and software pieces that collectively provide the capability foundation.
I could not review Jonathan's intro at <http://www.eros-os.org/essays/capintro.html> as the server was indisposed.