Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:45:25 -0500
- In-reply-to: <"020123114048Z.WT21516.220*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
- Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
- References: <"020123114048Z.WT21516.220*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
On Wednesday 23 January 2002 06:22 am, Pete Kirkham wrote:
> For any application, there is a hypothetical domain model, which is
> a representation of all knowledge of that domain. It is unlikely to
> exist in any complete realised form, but only in the heads of the
> experts in that domain.
The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a
vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you agree
on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole point.
The terms *intrinsically* do *not* have any meaning. Only in the
context of the interpreter dot hey have meaning, and only if the
knowledge is shared and agreed upon will useful communication occur.