[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Patrick,
> I don't recall ever calling a JITTs processor an XML processor. It
> is a processor that can use XML markup to impose structure on data.
> It could just as well use both the XML markup as well as Simon's
> fragmentation or even true DATATAG as part of the processing of a
> data set and still be a JITTs processor. It is that freedom that is
> one of the differences from a LMNL processor, which appears to be
> limited to LMNL syntax. (Correct me if I am wrong on that last
> point.)
You're wrong on that last point. A LMNL processor isn't actually
defined anywhere, but I'd say that it was anything that generates a
LMNL data model. There are no restrictions on what the *source* of
that LMNL data model could be -- XML, LMNL, TexMECS, plain text, CVS
files etc. etc. etc.
The LMNL syntax is there as a *serialisation syntax* so that LMNL data
models can be exchanged easily, because you can't represent
overlapping ranges and structured annotations in XML without reifying,
and reified structures are tedious to write and a whole lot larger
than non-reified ones.
But that definitely doesn't rule out using other syntaxes as the
source of LMNL data models; in fact yesterday I wrote a SAX-to-SAL
filter to make it easy for XML documents to be interpreted as LMNL
data models (elements become ranges; attributes become annotations).
> Ah, but the proper acronym is JITTs (note the little "s" on the
> end). ;-) With that correction, obviously much cooler than LMNL! ;-)
> (Although I must confess a weakness for the LMNL hat. Think we may
> have found something for JITTs (the proper acronym) but checking on
> permissions before posting.)
The hat is *the* coolest thing about LMNL, in my opinion (and that's
saying a lot, 'cos LMNL is *very* cool ;). All credit to Wendell Piez
for it.
Cheers,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
