xml-dev - Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination

Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: "XML DEV" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 21:49:51 +0100
In-reply-to: <000701c3287d$67c9b040$b6f5d3ce@L565>
References: <r01050400-1026-C6111F0C946C11D7B5F00003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <000701c3287d$67c9b040$b6f5d3ce@L565>
Sender: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
User-agent: KMail/1.5.1

Jonathan Borden wrote,
> When a pharmacist sees a drug interaction that the doctor hasn't, the
> intention is to flag this, and contact the doctor for more
> instructions ... this is exactly what ontologies (and schemata in
> general) are great at: spotting inconsistencies.

Uh huh ...

And to bring this back to the starting point of this thread: haven't you 
just described a _process_?

Cheers,


Miles

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] VocabularyCombination ...
  - From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>

References:
- Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
  - From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
  - From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination ...
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Data vs. Process was Re: [xml-dev] VocabularyCombination ...
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread