OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] The triples datamodel -- was Re: [xml-dev] Semantic Web pe

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Then the interesting development would be to use 
the RDF/ontology systems to inform the tagging 
systems by inspection.  The problem of the tree 
model is even if there is a wildcard, that just 
means 'anything goes' and the user either uses 
one of the safe options (a contained element 
or attribute) or makes up one for the wildcard 
slot.  An ontological system should be 
able to 'know' that the topic is munitions or 
flight controls and have a consistent if finite 
set of assertions for that topic even if the 
human doing the tagging doesn't.

That doesn't solve the completeness problem 
but nothing does.  Some element of danger 
remains.  Now the problem is temporal awareness 
or context of application: is it ever possible 
that a person is under the aileron or in front 
of the engine and can one design a repair depot 
where that doesn't happen?  Again, it isn't 
the machine that is dangerous; it is the 
environment.  Most tagging dilemmas come down 
to engineering the environment, that is, 
meta-controlling it (which is also a self-limiting 
solution but ok).
That is why street diggers put out traffic cones. 
They don't keep someone from driving into the hole, 
but they keep them from winning a lawsuit after they 
dig out.


From: Ari Nordstrom [mailto:mayfair@tiscali.se]

The reason why the (mis-)tagging is a PARA and not a whole new tag, 
invented by an adventurous author, is simply that the system where the 
mistake was made requires validation. If validation wasn't required I'm 
pretty sure there would be a new tag instead. If you know people do this 
kind of thing, you want to remove as many possible mistakes as possible. 
It's a very good reason for validation, and enough motivation for a number 
of "mission-critical" systems, from airplane documentation to armed forces 
field instructions.

See, PARA is bad enough, but it won't lose the information. A new tag just 
might, in some context.

>Even more fundamentally, the real problem here is the necessity of the 
>warning in the first place. Most properly designed systems (munitions may 
>be an exception) should not be able to kill people. There should be 
>nothing in my toaster, computer, or microwave oven that can injure me 
>short of dropping it on my head from a high building. This should be true 
>regardless of what the manual says.

The _system_ doesn't kill anyone, but the things the system is used to 
describe just might do that. Both of my examples above deal with 
information of that nature.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS