[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I beg to differ.
>
> What I _am_ saying is that as long as there is a transformation, then there
> is a logical relationship between the two formats. If there are
> bidirectional transformations then the two formats are equivalent _with
> respect to that transform_. When we have logically equivalent lexical
> representations for a particular value (read: when the lexical spaces both
> map to the same value space) then _other issues_ such as appropriateness for
> a particular set of authors, users, human vs. machine readability etc. guide
> the choices we might make for a given application.
>
> So yes, as long as it can be transformed ... to the extent that such a
> transform provides a logical equivalence i.e. that we are talking about the
> same value with different lexical representations ... then I am in the camp
> that folks should choose whatever they prefer ** understanding that certain
> types of software, renderers, and a host of unpredicable issues will guide
> which lexical representation is appropriate for which application. More
> succinctly: I don't care :-)
I must have missed something. This is not what I understood you to be saying,
and glancing back at your recent posts, I'm still having trouble reconciling
those with the above.
No matter. I'm happy to accept a satisfactory conclusion :-)
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
