[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:35:40 -0600
I don't know what a Linda-system is. As for the rest,
that is the domain of ontological hermeneutics, the interpretation
of texts, originally. It doesn't matter if the systems share
rules globally. It matters that each systems acts and reacts
in accordance with its own rules one of which may be to
issue requests for verification to the other agency. The discovery
based systems rely on the interpretation of discoverable
descriptions. They can set up "ground rules" as they go.
This becomes a protocol of behaviors by communicating types
of information. The schemas are adequate for that. The
issue is associating these with locally derived and
maintained rules. I think ultimately this is why namespaces
get resolved to something like RDDL in many cases and
directly to schema in some. One can't sensibly rely
on schemas without coupling a process of use for the
Simple exchange of documents or messages is not hard
to do. The problem is one of shared command over
resource allocation. Consider the problem of multiple
stores that share the same delivery system, eg, trucks.
A truck is en route to deliver a package for its owner
agency when another agency that also has packages on
the truck receives an order critical to a customer.
Should the second agency negotiate with the first
agency over rerouting the truck? No. It
should negotiate with the truck driver. Local rules
for command and control. Global rules for intelligence.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:email@example.com]
This thought experiment might highlight what's needed in these cases Len
talking about. Imagine that there is a Linda-like system, and its tuple
is relatively public, or at least shared by Len's agencies. One agency puts
out a tuple with slots that are query templates asking to be filled.
Later, the agency retrieves the tuple and pulls out the field values. How
it have some confidence that those field values are what it asked for? Or,
bring the question closer to this thread, what has to be included with the
query so that another system can undertand what is being asked for and
evaluate whether it should respond?
Remember, in this Linda-like system, a responding agency only knows the
contents of the field in the tuple. Nothing more, unless the whole system
set up with some ground rules.