[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Only to the human. To the machine, they are identical
to 'dog' or 'cat' as long as one isn't required to
say xsi:type. That one wants to preserve or lose
type information in the instance is a local politic.
What is ground is depends on where the conversation
takes place, not on who is speaking. My question is
why does he want type information? How does that
inform the process at hand?
IMHO, he might want to use type information in
a larger locale with more members. I am still
having a wonderful time watching an organization
attempt loose-coupling without schemas. The
amount of coordination required and energy lost
as a result perfectly mimics the Fisher/Shannon
inverted curves. Heat in the ecotones doesn't
infer productive work.
len
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:
> Why do I need to know that both dogs and cats are mammals?
> Must I state that every time I feed the dog or the cat?
Note that the names "simple-time" and "complex-time" are themselves
complex in structure, unlike "dog" and "cat". "Dog" and "cat" are
both ground-level notions with simple, native words. "Mammal" is above
ground level. But "time of day" is a ground-level notion, and "human
time convention" vs. "structural time convention" is below ground level.
|
