Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:36:25 -0600
Maybe I'm missing the point, but that sounds
an awful lot like the arguments the groves
supporters make; the need for exhaustive defintition
of the complete tree including all of the hidden
values which the properties of the abstractions
infer (eg, like the problem of the hidden
namespace declarations when using stylesheets).
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:38 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Re: Ontologies
Ronald Bourret wrote:
> Could you explain at a technical level what is happening? It sounds like
> a node contains code to extract whatever it needs from the input, but
> that this code must be written explicitly. That is:
> "The point is that in all these cases there is processing
> code--unique to each node--to be written, and nothing will
> magically obviate that chore."
> Is this correct?
I would not use the term 'extract'. An integral step in the processing at
each node is
instantiating the particular data structure(s) which the node's specific
expects. This work is a necessary part of coding any executable process:
those cases where the whole of the data structure required is passed in
through a well
known API, the executable code must instantiate the process instance of that