[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray wrote:
>
> james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de> wrote:
> | Arjun Ray wrote:
> ...
> | please decide whether you want to describe operations over the elements
> | of "an organizing scheme, over [a] vovabulary" (regardless of what it
> | might suggest) or over the elements of a "name set".
>
> This is instrumentality, not ontology. An organizing scheme serves only
> as a determinate source of names; that is, we know where all the relevant
> names have come from.
does it make a difference to know where the names came from, or does it matter
only that they are a set of names.?
> This is a given, if not before the first left angle
> bracket, then certainly by the time of the last right angle bracket. Tag
> markup consists of names associated with data values. Unless the names
> are made up on the spot, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are
> drawn from somewhere. XMap "operations" are on such names, as an author
> would intend to use in a starttag: names drawn from disparate sources can
> be "mixed" such that (a) more than one name can be associated with a data
> item such as an attribute value, and (b) distinct attribute specifications
> requiring the use of the same (lexical) name can be disambiguated. There
> is no implication of operations over elements of sets,
? the names are elements of set.
> or of functional
> mappings other than the trivially one-shot circumstantial, per starttag.
>
> | please do it in advance. please do not repeat the sins of "namespaces".
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
the uncertainty as to whether what matters is the set of names or where they
come from and or are used.
> Personally, I couldn't give a
> flying <font> for "namespaces". My concern is with colonification, which
> I consider destructive. XMap eliminates that syntactic device.
>
> |> The scope is the document.
> |
> | ?
>
> I'm sorry, I believe I've used "scope" in a different sense from what you
> were expecting. Please ignore this statement - we'd just be talking past
> each other.
>
> | can different elements in a given document map a given "local" name to
> | different "external" names? your examples implied that this could be
> | permitted.
>
> Correct.
>
> | which would imply at least "element" scope, rather than "document" scope.
>
> Perhaps the best way to accommodate your notion of scope would be talk in
> terms of the markup in a starttag, because that's where the "operations"
> "occur".
>
> | does the "element" scope entail contained elements?
>
>
> I "guess" so, but then again, maybe not. Seriously, I have no idea why
> your notion of "scope" matters to you.
>
it matters because, to the extent that XMap is intended to subsume namespaces in
XML, under certain conditions it will behave the same, which means that while
performing the transformation which XMap describes, the pairs in the control
attributes are equivalent to variable bindings and the transformation itself is
equivalent to beta-conversion.
...
ps. the notion of scope is not "mine".
|
