[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod scripsit:
> It would really help if you could provide some specific, concrete
> examples. The usual model is that in order to buy something you submit a
> purchase order in a well-known vocabulary and receive in return a
> receipt (modulo all kinds of negotiations, acceptance protocols, etc.).
> Input->function->output. Input and output are publically, formally
> defined. The function is defined only by its implementation.
Think about some more loosely coupled applications than remote procedure
call: data mining, for example. In data mining, the application that
reads through the data does not care what the intention was of the
process that wrote it, which is probably long since dead. And it may
place an entirely different *pragmatic* on that data.
Now extend this notion to real time, where you have processes that are
steadily churning out knowledge to consumers that can do whatever they
want with it. For example, Reuters Health narrowcasts news articles each
day to its customers, but does not care what they do with them: the
articles can be displayed as-is on a customer Web site, incorporated into
a database, or printed out for use by a human editor.
> How can a process select the data it will work upon without a priori
> knowledge of the semantics of the element types.
This is the place where WP and I still butt heads. I think I see his
point of view, but I'm not clear enough on it yet to actually state it.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Perform swift circular ambulation, http://www.reutershealth.com
With loud and high-pitched ululation.
|
