xml-dev - RE: Compressability (WAS RE: XML Schemas: the wrong name)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Hi Martin:

It would be interesting to read your comments on 

http://www.ph.surrey.ac.uk/~phs1it/papers/layer7.htm

and Greenwald's levels of representation diagram therein.
Note that in that diagram for human cognition, schemata 
are at the top of the five levels, but categorization 
is in the middle.  Thus

schemata <-> propositions <-> categories <-> objects <-> features

Note the emphasis or recognition of patterns to properly 
name new instances, and the concern of the author that 
most approaches have emphasized relations within a level 
over relations between levels.   Since I am not very familiar 
with RDF models being applied although I understand the basics 
of RDF, I wonder how or if designers are handlingthis.  My intuition 
is that just as these authors describe, RDF semantic models 
must be able to be layered and relations between levels 
are critical for compressability to work well.  By compressability, 
note the use of automated classification techniques to 
create higher level representations that are more efficient 
and the enabling of higher level operations based on the 
outputs of the lower level processes. 

If we are to use semantic networks well, QOS issues become 
germane quickly.  A user of a high-level representation 
should not have to rely on deep knowledge of the network 
to wire it into an advanced workflow.  On the other hand, 
unless the QOS numbers indicate a highly reliable component 
operating on an authoritative, credible model, this is a 
dicey thing to try without lots of testing.  Exhaustive 
testing seems unreasonable to require, but are there 
alternatives other than "ship it and wait for customer 
feedback".

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bryan [mailto:mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com]

One of the key problems is the wollyness of these commonly usesd (or I
should say misused) names. If you replace them with the more accurate
CONSISTS-OF and HAS-BEEN-CLASSIFIED-AS you can start to see the relationship
between the two, especially if you think in terms of Whole/Part
relationships.