RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?

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

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 
propellor faster.</rant>

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mrc@allette.com.au]

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?