[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
If going to HTML, how about something like:
<xsl:template match="somens:*">
<div class="{local-name()}">
<xsl:apply-templates/>
</div>
</xsl:template>
And define the L&F in CSS.
Probably too simplistic but it works for us in our CMS for generic content
handling. Some well known things (tables, forms, titles, etc) are
overridden, but you get the idea.
Best,
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:57 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> This is a continuation of the discussion that we had last week on
> complex systems. I have a couple of somewhat fuzzy ideas that I would
> like to throw out. My objective is to stimulate the flow of ideas, and
> perhaps bring clarity to my ideas.
>
> Mike Champion made an interesting statement last week while discussing
> semantics:
>
> > But how about the messy real world most of us must
> > operate in, where there is an intent to deceive
> > (spammers, virus writers, software companies with
> > patents on common sense, politicians starting wars [or
> > questioning the definition of "is"], ad nauseum)? How
> > about in pop culture contexts where meanings of words
> > are changed literally for the fun of it?
>
> That got me to thinking. Suppose that we define the collection of all
> XML tags that are used within a domain as a "system". Let me refer to
> each individual tag as a "part" of the system. The system is
> dynamically expanding and shrinking, i.e., parts (tags) are being
> introduced/withdrawn all the time. There are both fixed and changing
> interactions in the system, i.e., some parent/child, sibling, semantic
> relationships are fixed, others change.
>
> What we have is a complex system. I could continue on with this
> description and talk about system properties, emergent properties,
> attractors, etc. However, since the topic is semantics, I would like to
> focus on the use of ontologies in such a system.
>
> Ontology languages such as RDF Schema and OWL provide the ability to
> *statically* capture semantic relationships. However, as Mike points
> out, semantics is a continually evolving thing. As a system evolves, so
> must the ontology evolve. In fact, an ontology must be part of the
> system.
>
> "The essence of self-organization is that system structure often appears
> without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system."[1]
> To manage evolving semantics a system must self-organize as semantics
> evolve. In other words, an ontology must be a constantly evolving
> entity.
>
> How can we create an ontology that evolves? Here is a thought: express
> semantic relationships in an XSLT document! An XSLT stylesheet has an
> interesting property of being able to output a modified version of
> itself, i.e., the output of the stylesheet is another, modified,
> stylesheet. The output stylesheet may contain template rules that have
> been modified to reflect changing semantics, and additional template
> rules that contain new semantic relationships.
>
> Honestly, I am not sure how one would express semantic relationships in
> a stylesheet. For example, how would you express that a SLR is a type of
> Camera, or aperture is synonymous with f-stop?
>
> Well, that's it. As you can see my ideas are rather fuzzy, but perhaps
> they will stimulate your thoughts. /Roger
>
> [1] Self-Organizing Systems FAQ for Usenet newsgroup
> comp.theory.self-org-sys
>
|
