Re: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
Martin Bryan wrote - ... >Think of your average HTML document. How much (semantic) meaning is there in any node >label? In 99% of tags, none. Are Word documents (even those stored as XML objects) any >better? Or an XML-encoded Star document? No. To apply meaning to such documents you >have to associate a meaningful term with the node. Actually, there can be more than meets the eye at first. With human-to-human communication, structure can provide quite a lot of meaning. Just change the indentation of a list or the order of parts of a sentence and you can easily change the meaning, for example. Labeling a part with <h2> brings some intention or hint or context along with it. >There may be more than one relevant >term to describe the meaning. Different communities (linguistic, cultural or commercial) use >different terms to identify the same meaning. You therefore need a mechanism for >assoication multiple terms to a single node. This is what Topic Maps do. (Unfortunately, >despite many years of screaming on my part, Topic Maps fail to require you to record the >meaning of the term!!) No, I think it's good to let "meaning identification" be optional. You might not need the information in particular cases. For example, if I say that "Joe Lieberman is a member of the Senate", you don't necessarily need definitions for "Senate" or "member". Better not to clutter up the document if you don't have to. For the same reason, I object to requiring information objects to be URIs in both Topic Maps and RDF. Well, you can fake it by using the data: scheme (which I take to be legal because that scheme is defined in an RFC). Cheers, Tom Passin
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format