[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:34:04 -0600
Semantic: the means to choose. It is the
choice that gives meaning. Apriori, it
is a choice among means. Rules are
not the semantic. Grammar is not the
semantic. The semantic is behavior of
choosing. Grammars and rules are means.
<rant>We already have rules based and
grammar based systems. So the split is there
and it is a choice of leaving them separate
and absorbing the cost of the maintenance of
that, thus giving RDDL etc a requirement,
or trying to combine them and setting
XML Schema back a year or so.
The harsh part of that is if we let it
become fuzzy, this tech could die a bornin'
and the XML initiative come to look silly.
A lot of claims have been made for XML.
Emphasizing how good our computer
science is in the abstract is just as
effective as proving one can outplay
Louis Armstrong by playing a scale
twice as fast as he could. Fact is, who cares.
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing..."
So while y'all debate rules vs grammar,
remember, the stock market is being
beaten into swords again, people are
becoming leary of the Internet companies,
and we are responsible. Get a fix on
the requirements and the use cases, not
a bead on proving who can spin their
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
This is very interesting - I wonder if we might be heading for another split
such as the one that saw XSL split into T and FO? The differences are
becoming more pronounced, and the term "schema language" is starting to lack
definition as a result.
Eric (or anyone else), how do you differentiate between rules and semantics?