[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>
> > > > I see no reason why the exact same provision cannot be made in the
> case of
> > > >
> > > > <date>2002-08-06</date>
> > > >
> > > > In the schema, you can say:
> > > >
> > > > "A date formatted as specified in ISO-8601"
> > >
> > > yup. but this value _is_ tagged, it's not just a string.
> >
> > "Just a string" is the heart of this entire argument, and not a given
> premise.
> > In the end, if it can be expressed in XML, it is "just a string". The
> magic
> > is in the interpretation, and as long as you have the full tools for
> > interpretation, I don't see how gung-ho tagging is any less ambiguous, or
> more
> > valuable in any other respect, than the use of untagged content. The tags
> can
> > themselves be the full tools for interpretaion, but in this thread we are
> > looking at cases where this is not necessary, because of convention.
> Geospace
> > and dates are the example.
>
> And my claim is that tagging the data _reduces_ the ambiguity. Now you may
> claim that there is no ambiguity in which case you can interpret your
> (non-XML) strings. My claim is that if there is ambiguity, tagging reduces
> it.
>
> > >
> > > Besides the vast majority of Americans write:
> > >
> > > <date>02-03-2004</date>
> > >
> > > and so when you have different specs that start mixing the order of
> years,
> > > months, days it _is_ ambiguous. If you write out the date as is often
> seen
> > > in legal documents it is the equivalent of the marked up version:
>
> Where is the schema in the above example? I don't see one. I see only
>
> <date>02-03-2004</date>
>
> Now we might use the <date> tag to somehow find a schema but suppose the
> naked
>
> 02-03-2004
>
> where is the schema? Granted if you have _already ascertained_ that this
> value is typed a schema might not be necessary, but is that the case here?
>
> >
> > No. It is not the slightest bit ambiguous because the schema
> disambiguates
> > it. Your example also needs a schema to disambiguate it (as Joe pointed
> out,
> > you don't state whether it's CE or BCE), so I still don't consider it less
> > ambiguous.
>
> Again, what schema?
The one that says that your date is CE and not BCE. If there is none, you
have big problems.
> Suppose the string "10". What does it represent?
>
> a) a title of a movie
> b) a decimal age
> c) a binary number?
>
> it might be any of the above.
Yes. And...?
> > I think Joe made a killer point with his mention that you probably don't
> write
> > <quantity><hundreds>1</hundreds><tens>4</tens><ones>4</ones></quantity>
>
> I missed the point of this one. All numbers I've seen writted (unlike dates)
> are written right to left in increasing significance.
Seems you want to miss the point :-)
So because you posted one example that you felt had to do with the order of
slots in a structure you assume every example must? That's the only thing
that needs to be specified in lexical representations?
Whatever. I'm off this one. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
--
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/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
