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] A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:19:40 -0500, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger scripsit:
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:41:29 +0100, J.Pietschmann <j3322ptm@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > > Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> > > > I need to make this a little clearer: syntax doesn't matter __if
> > > > you're careful__.
> > >
> > > Perhaps in other words: Syntax doesn't matter unless you try
> > > to express semantics by a certain syntax (i.e. syntax implies
> > > semantics). Most of the EDI-formats I've seen attempt the latter.
> >
> > Certainly that's part of the issue: if you commit to a Schema up front
> > then syntax matters since you've started to describe the semantics for
> > a given syntax (element).
> Every syntax implies some semantics, or there would be no point in having
> syntax: we could just concatenate the content-bits in alphabetical order
> and try to guess what it was all about:  "alice, bob, charlie, hates,
> loves, peggy".

Sorry if I didn't give enough detail for you to see where I was going
with this (it's a little hectic around here).  Perhaps I should have
saidn "then the syntax matters more", and gone into more detail?  The
issue is: certain syntaxes carry with them more semantics than others;
if you're modeling you want to make sure the semantics are correct
before you commit to them....

> > The other thing to figure out is how to do generic processing on
> > everything.  For example in an XSLT you don't look for element names,
> > you look for other distinguishing attributes (type or such).
> All that means is that you are generic about element names but specific
> about types.  Now types are either specified by name (xsi:type), or are
> determined by examining the child elements and attribute values in ways
> that involve names.  There's no such thing as generic-processing-all-the-way-down,
> any more than the world can really be held up by turtles all the way down.

Would you argue that RDF can'd be used to describe RDF?

Again, perhaps I should have been clearer: given that many of these
patterns are recursive they more-or-less can be "generic all the way
down" (I don't believe your analogy has any relevance).  For parts of
this you don't really need to assume any type up front.

Peter Hunsberger


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

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