Lists Home |
Date Index |
Emotions thrill and enable. As long as you are
making progress, let them ride. Really offensive stuff
will kick off the list filters. :-)
A concise description of the "mess" minus the "how" is
wanted. We're all just beavers. If the dam is leaking,
best to stop the leak first and not worry about how or
which beavers put in a bad log.
The current attractor seems to be arch form style remapping vs namespaces
with the lakshman rekha being self-descriptive vs augmented documents.
Is that it?
As I recall, one aspect of groves and topic maps (can't be
more precise than that) was that the means by which identity
is established had to be explicitly denoted. We've just
seen a long round on the identity issues which might just
be "what are the explicit properties of a document and how
are they established" discussion which is a lot like the
I am wondering if there is a nugget here that is
shared by all of these issues. We don't seem to be able
to have an efficient self-descriptive document and we
don't want to accept augmentation via external documents
(eg, DTDs, schemas). Is this an impasse that can be
met by compromises in certain applications, but only
narrowly and for a given application, but otherwise,
kicks off the same discussion for any new problem?
I am beginning to believe that attempting to work
with self-descriptive systems for any given problem
in every case is a non-starter. Well-formedness
simply isn't enough for interoperability; portability,
yes, but not interoperability.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I'm still waiting for an open explanation of how we got into this mess
in the first place, and why the TAG so unanimously opted to reject
HLink. We're missing a lot of context that would help clear technical
discussion, so don't be surprised that you're getting a lot of emotions.