• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:45:25 -0500
• In-reply-to: <"020123114048Z.WT21516.220*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <"020123114048Z.WT21516.220*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>

On Wednesday 23 January 2002 06:22 am, Pete Kirkham wrote:
> For any application, there is a hypothetical domain model, which is
> a representation of all knowledge of that domain.  It is unlikely to
> exist in any complete realised form, but only in the heads of the
> experts in that domain.

The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a 
vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you agree 
on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole point.

The terms *intrinsically* do *not* have any meaning. Only in the 
context of the interpreter dot hey have meaning, and only if the 
knowledge is shared and agreed upon will useful communication occur.

• Prev by Date: Re: Extension and media type and RDDL and document types
• 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