[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeni,
Jeni Tennison wrote:
>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.
>
Let me see if I can get a little closer by changing your words and see
if you think I am saying the same thing:
A LMNL processor generates the LMNL data model (ranges and annotations)
based upon places in the data (however found, imposed or represented)
and data associated with those places?
I assume that this is some in memory representation or is it output to
the "serialization syntax" in the form of a file for further processing?
So, correcting my earlier statement, the LMNL view of data is limited to
the LMNL data model? (I realize you do not agree that is a limitation or
not much of one.)
On the other hand, JITTs does not have a data model. It imposes whatever
data model (in your sense of the term) without regard to the how the
places in the data are represented in a particular "serialization
syntax." In other words, I could impose the XML data model on a
Postscript file, or vice versa, but either would require careful
attention to the requirements of the output "serialization syntax."
You can say that JITTs represents a divorce between any given
serialization syntax and a particular data model. Yes, I like that.
>
>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.
>
No, the data model of XML does not support these uses. In the JITTs
world view, that has no relevance to what data model and what
occurrences of a serialization syntax are selected (or used in data) to
match a particular data model. If I want to output XML, I best use the
XML data model to guide the selection and/or processing of whatever
occurrences that need to be output in a serialization syntax to conform
to that data model.
<snip>
>>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.
>
Wendell is the origin of the hat??? ;-) I knew he was talented in
markup, literature and a variety of other subjects but not artistic
expression! Cheers for Wendell!
Patrick
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeni
>
>---
>Jeni Tennison
>http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
|
