• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:38:27 +0000
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6304@HQ5>

At 17:23 24/01/2002 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Series of processes?  That sounds like arch forms and/or PIs if one 
>doesn't want to Java.

Putting that processing information stuff into the instances is just 
exacerbating the problem.

Data should stand on its own two feet. RNG is absolutely right in my 
opinion - the data is
finite - the things you might want to do with it are infinite - don't embed 
processing information
in long lived data because the data will outlive the processing model.

PIs and so on are fine for assembly of throw-away renderings but I hate to 
see them
embedded in the core data.

As for the series of processes - that is what the XPipe[1] effort is about. 
A number of other
initiatives have similar goals - flexible declarative expression of 
processing to be performed
on instances *outside* of the instances themselves.

regards,
Sean
[1] http://xpipe.sourceforge.net

• References:
  • RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Taxonomies?
• Next by Date: Re: Entity resolution vs. URI resolution
• Previous by thread: AF and Schematron
• Next by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread