Re: [xml-dev] "XML is just syntax" versus "Use semantic markup" (Is this

["W. E. Perry" <wperry@fiduciary.com>]

Would it be helpful to visualize it as Talmud, where the layers of
commentary become, as they accrete, the target of further commentary or (a
rather different point of view) new lenses through which newer commentary
sees still older content? Or as the common law, where each precedent
becomes, as above, both the target of new citation and a lens which skews
later interpretations of older cases? I have begun to think that this
ongoing creation of 'content' out of continually created meta-content is a
fundamental intellectual process, and that there is little point asking for
a defined boundary between the two which would apply to anything more that
a particular instance (as the technical distinction which you cite in the
spec is limited to an XML instance document, not to anything so ambitious
as a 'class' of such documents, however schematically congruent its
members). However, this too-facile blurring of distinction between an
instance XML document and the 'class' of documents schematically congruent
to it may be the most common failure of strict understanding in the XML
community. And why not? The very notion of naming a GI seems inherently to
imply to our minds that there are other instances just like the one being
identified which share sufficient other properties beside the name given by
the GI to all of them, and that the naming of them with that GI is in fact
the discovery that those instances taken together are a 'class'.

I am working on a project where the securities transactions chosen for a
portfolio must be shown to correspond to the defined specifics of a trading
strategy. Each such strategy has a name, which might usefully be considered
the GI in which the strategy and, beyond the strategy, the trades
undertaken in realization of that strategy are 'rooted'--effectively the
base entity of that instance of content and meta-content. But the
strategies change in all their subtle details, often daily, in direct
response to the performance of the trades rooted upon them. To model this,
it is not sufficient to maintain each day's version of the strategy as an
instance root for the trades undertaken in that strategy on that day,
because the ongoing positions generated by each of those trades will have
unique and differing histories. Part of those histories is likely to be
that each position is rebalanced, augmented or closed out at different
times in accordance with then-current versions of the underlying strategy,
or in accordance with a replacement strategy.

IMHO the only way to 'evaluate' the correspondence of a portfolio of the
moment to a strategy is to elaborate, by process, a unique instance of
semantics which is utterly specific to the particular layering of putative
content and meta-content, considering the instance at hand as a single
whole of content, if only for the sole purpose of that particular operation
of that process.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

bryan rasmussen wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> > > is a tag name content or markup; or, is that a meaningful question?
> >
> >  It's whatever you define it as, surely.
>
> Surely the XML specification defines it as markup. So the spec has
> made that technical distinction to help with the processing.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php