RE: Fwd: [xml-dev] Data versioning strategy: address semantic, re lation

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

Thanks Dave.  I'll reread the article.

I agree syntactic capability can be reasonably defined.   XML is proof of it
by one means though there are others.  As we know from the TAG discussions,
it gets very difficult with semantics.

Mindful of Noah's admonition about the irritability factor of this list,
I'll defer adding to this thread more ruminations regarding how to identify
and scope operation sets over discrete data sets.

len


From: Dave Orchard [mailto:orchard@pacificspirit.com] 
 
Hi Len,

Another article might help..

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/12/20/a-theory-of-compatible-versions.html

One of the things that we have not been able to define at the TAG, and are
currently shying away from, is defining information or
semantic compatibility.  
My estimation is that syntactic compatibility can be defined in a reasonable
amount of time, but that defining how sets of
information or semantics are compatible is a doctoral thesis on it's own, if
not more.  Let me know if you (or anybody else) know(s)
of something even modestly straightforward on how compatibility of
information could be defined in any kind of mathematical sense,
set or otherwise.

Cheers,
Dave 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.