[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Map/Territory Conundrum in Topic Maps vs. RDF
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Steven R. Newcomb" <email@example.com>, XML DEV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:32:14 -0500
Noting only that some maps are drawn over
existing terrain, others, say a landscaping
map, are specific instructions for shaping
the terrain. Some DTD/Schemas are written
to describe content (tag sprinkling) while
others are used to direct a person/machine
to create content. The map/territory
conundrum is not the same in both processes.
Walter, your point of view seems to be
heavily influenced by the role of interpretation
of a receiving node. There is no true
universe AFAIK. There are messages and
contexts of communication, plus contracts
that one might assert and others assent
to over some communication context. Because
markup is simply a system, and any system
by definition has rules, one consents to
rules or doesn't.
The creeping WebXML As Universal bugs me.
It seems inimical to progress.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:email@example.com]
That map is certainly not the only possible map, gloss, structure or other
opinion which might be constructed upon the non-markup content of that
instance, and in fact may not be the only one which could be elaborated
from that particular combination of markup and other content. But unlike,
perhaps, the 'real universe' or (pace Pontius Pilate) the 'truth', marked
up documents do consist of two types of content, one of which, the markup,
is in some sense a commentary upon, a suggested structure for, or a
possible map to some portion of the rest.