[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
> >if all you encountered was "<UDWhatever_22>", then you were not
> >reading very carefully. the question was about dependancy, not
> >exclusivity.
>
> You had asked:
> >why would one ever bother to encode or exchange any mention of
> >ProductPartIdentifier, when the necessary and sufficient identifier is
> >UDEF_9_5_8?
>
> That seems to be exclusivity to me. Perhaps you're using the term in
> ways that go beyond my understanding of it.
then you should go back and read the first post, which asked why one needs the
documentation in the document entity, and included
-------------------------------------------
> An XML representation would be:
>
> <ProductPartIdentifier UID=“9_5.8”>123-456-789</ProductPartIdentifier>
>
> The communicated benefit is that one can change tag names, but use of
> the UID signifies "what one is *really* talking about".
>
why bother encoding the [discursive term as the] tag name. why not just do
<!DOCTYPE SOME_UDEF SYSTEM "data:,<!ELEMENT UDEF_9_5_8 (#PCDATA) >" [
<!ATTLIST UDEF_9_5_8 ProductPartIdentifier #FIXED "TRUE">
]>
<UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8>
or
<!DOCTYPE SOME_UDEF SYSTEM "data:,<!ELEMENT UDEF_9_5_8 (#PCDATA) >" [
<!ATTLIST UDEF_9_5_8 MIL-STD-2549 #FIXED "Part Product Identifier">
]>
<UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8>
or just
<UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8>
either you have got it right or you have not.
despite the truism, that the generic identifer is just a special attribute,
what is the advantage to making the universal depend on the ideosyncratic?
----------------------------------------------
>
> >> and that's what I think XML is, I'm liable to run like hell rather
> >> than deal with XML unless I'm paid an awful lot. (That's my general
> >> response to RDF/XML, and apparently it's not an unusual reaction.)
> >>
> >> Second, that kind of markup is only useful until we can't find the
> >> documentation any more.
> >
> >aren't the document definitions an integral component of the document?
>
> Not according to XML 1.0. They're quite plainly optional.
>
> >> For cases where the documentation is always
> >> going to be absolutely positively necessary, maybe that's fine.
> >
> >where i to be confronted with the mountain of data in twenty years,
> >i'd much rather find document entities full of <UDWhatever_22> and one
> >document definition which mapped the canonical terms to some
> >discursive definitions, than endless documents full of ideosyncratic
> >generic identifiers and one document definition which mapped one
> >vocabulary to the canonical terms.
> >
> >ymmv.
>
> It varies every day. I don't have twenty-year-old markup to deal with,
> but I deal with lots of vocabularies regularly, many of which do similar
> things slightly differently. (Heck, submitting the same paper to
> different IDEAlliance conferences involves sorting those issues out.)
> It's not that hard.
>
> >> Third, you're accepting all the costs of markup - text processing,
> >> verbose descriptions, etc. - and getting only a few of the benefits.
> >
> >is /@ that much more difficult than / ?
>
> What language are you speaking? If that's XPath, I didn't think we were
> in the classic elements/attributes tussle.
think again.
|
