Hi,
I'm trying to come up with an "intuitive" model for presenting namespace concepts to "casual"/non-tech-savvy users.
E.g., MS adopted the terminology of "folders" instead of "subdirectories" in explaining the hierarchical filesystem (which is really just a namespace) of the PC. Then, "typed" objects therein by means of adding meaning to arbitrary "three letter" extensions to those (file)names, etc.
But, this skirts the formal issue of namespaces, in general. And, leaves folks with the misconception that things are "files", etc. (instead of "named objects referenced within a namespace").
I would like to come up with a "friendly" analogy by which users could embrace the concept of different namespaces without clumsy terms and "forced" analogies. I.e., something that recognizes the difference between "name/identifier" and "object" to which it refers.
Note that this is particularly important when you deal with disjoint namespaces in which the underlying implementation need not be exposed to the user (as it probably offers nothing of value in that understanding).
E.g., you name our *dog* without concern for the names of your neighbors' pets, your children, vehicle(s), food recipes, titles of novels you may have authored, etc.
[sorry, I realize this is a bit abstract...]