[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Ontologies

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:36:25 -0600

Maybe I'm missing the point, but that sounds 
an awful lot like the arguments the groves 
supporters make; the need for exhaustive defintition 
of the complete tree including all of the hidden 
values which the properties of the abstractions 
infer (eg, like the problem of the hidden 
namespace declarations when using stylesheets). 

Yes? No?

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@f...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:38 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Re: Ontologies


Ronald Bourret wrote:

> Could you explain at a technical level what is happening? It sounds like
> a node contains code to extract whatever it needs from the input, but
> that this code must be written explicitly. That is:
>
>    "The point is that in all these cases there is processing
>     code--unique to each node--to be written, and nothing will
>     magically obviate that chore."
>
> Is this correct?

I would not use the term 'extract'. An integral step in the processing at
each node is
instantiating the particular data structure(s) which the node's specific
process
expects. This work is a necessary part of coding any executable process:
even in
those cases where the whole of the data structure required is passed in
through a well
known API, the executable code must instantiate the process instance of that
data.

• Prev by Date: RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
• Next by Date: RE: Success factors for the Web and Semantic Web
• Previous by thread: RE: Ontologies
• Next by thread: Build the delta from two xml documents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread