[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The easiest way of fixing the tag abuse problem is by educating the
writers. A good style guide and an editor (the human kind, not the XML
kind) should do the trick.
I'd love an automated solution, yes, but I have yet to see one that
actually works, RDF and such notwithstanding.
Best,
/Ari
At 22:53 08/06/2004, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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.
>
>len
>
>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.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
