OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: XML word processors and the SW (was Re: First Order Logic .. .)

Title: RE: XML word processors and the SW (was Re: First Order Logic ...)
We can use the DTD or schema to automate and amplify the competence of the
user.  For the Semantic Web, it will also be critical to build on the
second leg, trust.   In some domains, (not security where trust
has a much more definite meaning), trust entails the willingness
to engage beyond the acceptance of competence.  For humans,
some assert the critical factors are emotional and that without
some model for emotions that is shared across the Semantic
Net, we have an interoperability issue for agents that goes
beyond the editing suite. 
Some duck this stuff as mushy, touchy feely, not science.
It isn't science.  It is art.   It is where the computer programmer
becomes inadequate and the actor takes over.  It is often
the case that the critical skill in the enterprise design is
acute awareness of the emotional factors of the agents
that must cooperate and negotiate.
Reagan was a terrible president.  He was a so-so actor. 
But the combination of power and mediocre talent made
him an excellent leader.  
When one looks at the applications of a DTD, one should
not consider the DTD in isolation, but as a family of schemata
in a process context in a goal context.  Schemas are part
of the ecology of communicating entities.   Viewed as such,
any topic is open to schematization.  With the capacity of
adaptation to the schema, one can then model appropriateness.
All these things are possible.
But without the human emotional modeling, the critical
question "who sez?" is often answered by "who cares?"


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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Turnbull [mailto:jturnbull@softquad.com]

I believe you are proposing a way to automate the creation of DTDs. My intuition says that useful authoring DTDs express ideas that are, so far, too difficult for practical algorithms to create.

However, once you have the DTD, the question is not "Should I offer to the author a set of semantics and content rules?", but rather "Should I require that the author be constrained within the limits of a model during the writing process?" Most authors answer No. Almost everyone who bears the cost of document processing answers Yes.

You ask about Microsoft. They have considered the semantics issue deeply and they have addressed their need with XMetaL. Microsoft purchased an enterprise license for XMetaL and is making widespread use of it in some very interesting ways.

Fortunately, there is something in it for authors too. The model, in addition to constraint,  offers a structure on which useful programmatic behaviors can be created for use during authoring. There are hardly any documents, at least in the business world, whose creation cannot be facilitated by partial automation. That's the major economic driver behind the use of XML for rich content and Microsoft's decision to purchase an authoring tool that is also a developer's platform.