• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:12:58 -0600

See  http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200003/msg00156.html

for one clue from Eliot Kimber.  Note:

"1. Provide a syntax for binding types in one schema to types in another
schema to define "is-a" relationships."

"3. Provide a way to formally declare that one document/schema is derived
from an architecture (remembering that the architecture is more than
just a schema declaration, it is also the supporting documentation that
describes the semantics of the types defined by the architecture)."

I don't know if that is the extent of it.  Is documentation of 
semantics enough?  Note that SGML Notations could point to 
the actual processor (eg, a dll) and pass that to the system.  

I am curious:  how direct and at what level of granularity 
should XML instances and elements indicate "semantics"? What 
are the allowable or preferred expressions of the semantic?  It 
seems that every proposal so far is just another means 
of indirection varying mainly in the syntax or the level 
of binding (to a document, to an element in a document, to a 
type in a document) that relates the containing object to a 
"semantic".

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

I can see that at some higher level they could be 
used as different ways to assign semantics to syntax, but that seems 
like an application of NS or AF, not inherent to either.

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread