Lists Home |
Date Index |
If going to HTML, how about something like:
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:57 PM
> To: email@example.com
> 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
> > 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 introduced/withdrawn all the time.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
> "The essence of self-organization is that system structure often appears
> without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system."
> To manage evolving semantics a system must self-organize as semantics
> evolve. In other words, an ontology must be a constantly evolving
> 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
>  Self-Organizing Systems FAQ for Usenet newsgroup