The same, but different

I just watched some pictures from a long time ago. Pictures of me. If I didn't knew it was me, I wouldn't say so. Over the years I have grown and become grayer. But it is me. This identity is strange. I'm going to a course and I'm learning some (I hope so and others too), but it's still me. In 2007 Douglas R. Hofstadter wrote a whole book about it: "I am a strange loop". By the way, I have always remembered the title of that book wrong. Apparently I found "I is a strange loop" a better description of the content. Linguistically also not wrong, because 'I' here refers to the concept I and not to me.

Okay, this is weird. But with the emergence of digital files, a new problem has arisen. Let me introduce it using a metaphor. Imagine me standing in front of you with my hands on my back. First I show my left hand with a blank sheet of A4 in it; I keep my right hand behind my back. I put my left hand behind my back again and then show my right hand with a blank sheet of A4 in it; I now hold my left hand behind my back. How many blank A4 sheets do I have ? Actually it is impossible for you to say. I may have shown the same A4 twice, changing it behind my back. However, I can also have got two, one in each hand. I can even have a stack and showed you only one of them. Only when I show both my hands, with an A4 sheet in each can you say that there are two. They are identical - at least for you at that distance - and the only thing that distinguishes them is where they are located. You never actually see digital files. What you see on your screen is not the file, but an image that refers to a file. Now you make a copy of a file. Then you get a file with the same content, but with a different 'place' on the hard disk. Or, what is also possible, you clean up your hard drive. The file will then remain, but it will be in a different location on the hard drive. Or actually: new (technical) files have been created that are different on the hard drive, but look the same for you (as a user). Anyone who has ever copied files from a Mac to a Windows (or DOS) machine may have seen that one file on the Mac becomes two files in the Windows environment. So the question arises: how many files are actually on the hard disk?

Now suppose you are writing a confidential memo. Before it can go out, it must be reviewed by your manager. That is why you first deliver a draft version, which you send to him encrypted. You get it, again encrypted, with some comments and erasements. You use this to make a new final version.

In this case, you have three versions of the memo: draft, reviewed, and final. The memo is not one of these three versions. So you have four objects in total: the memo and its three versions. Or do you have 6? The encrypted versions of the draft and the reviewed version are different too.

Or do you have 9 things: the memo, an unencrypted and an encrypted draft version on your computer and also on your manager's computer (4 in total), ditto for the reviewed version and finally the final version on your computer. Ooo, wait. I'm actually talking about 'the encrypted draft version' of which a copy is on your computer and a copy on your manager's computer. This brings us (for the time being) to a total of 18.

Is it necessary to distinguish all these objects? Yes. For example, when it concerns Article 8 of the Dutch Police Data Act (WPG). You want to state that this article is part of the WPG (and not only a special version of it). It has not happened yet, but if the (consolidated) text of that article changes, you must be able to refer to the old and the new version. You have a 'plain version' of that text containing only the text and you have the HTML version where the text 'articles 9, 10 and 12' is also linked to the relevant articles. KOOP adds these links. To be accountable, they must be able to indicate what the actual input was of their process. Finally, you must be able to refer to this article in a version of the act. For example, to the article in the current version: https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0022463&paragraaf=2&artikel=8&z=2020-01-01&g=2020-01-01 or to the one in the previous version: https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0022463&paragraaf=2&artikel=8&z=2019-07-01&g=2019-07-01.

And to see if you have understand it all, two design problems.

1. Which URI should you use in Article 8 in the latest version of the WPG Act to refer to Article 9?
2. Do you use the same URI at every level to refer to Article 9 in Article 8 of the WPG?

Jan Campschroer. If I were you, you would understand me better.

Dutch version