Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > Agreed. Again, from *my* perspective, it's all about interpretation. You can > flip an XSLT stylesheet and say that it is testing conformance to a set of > assertions (schematron!), or in other words, it tests for, and interprets, a > type. Yes, indeed. Or those assertions might be understood as the local business process rules which govern the instantiation of locally useful data out of a received document. Broadly speaking, that interpretation and instantiation must always be a process, and whether it is short and simple or long and complex is a difference of degree, but never of kind. Though John Cowan asserts: Ah, but this obscures a distinction that is fundamental. It is one thing to *use* the counterparty data to establish the settlement price, and it is quite another thing to *interpret* the counterparty data *as* the settlement price. The one is a matter of authority (who gets to say what the true settlement price was?) and the latter is a matter of denotation (who gets to say that the "foo" element contains a counterparty and the "bar" element contains a settlement price?) that is a distinction without a difference. In either case it is the assertions (business rules, schematic constraints) which govern the operation of a local process which determine the instantiation--the locally realized form--of the data, and may do so without reference to the 'intent' of the creator or sender of the document from which that data is realized. Respectfully, Walter Perry
|
