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

Re: bohemians, gentry

• To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>,XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: bohemians, gentry
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:02:54 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3DEE4E8E.A0B32C49@f...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021204124927.02325108@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20021204130721.03be8fe8@n...>

At 01:50 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, W. E. Perry wrote:
>Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
> > But all data has a lexical representation, whether or not it also has a 
> data
> > type.
>
> From my point of view, this is exactly backwards, and in that difference of
>perspective is the explanation for where you and I have failed to persuade one
>another.

I'm really not at the point that I have understood you and disagree. I 
simply don't understand what you are saying.

>The lexical form is not the representation of data. Data--meaning, as I
>think you do, semantically rich information including, in your specific
>understanding, datatypes--is endowed with specific semantics by either the
>actuality or the possibility that it is, or will be, used in a specific 
>way by a
>specific process. You look at my lexical form in light of the purchase order
>processing or maintenance scheduling or address reconciliation process 
>which you
>expect to perform against it and you see in my text--reflected from your 
>intent of
>how it be used--the datatypes and other properties which you require. This 
>leads
>you to believe that my text is accurately understood as the serialization or
>lexical representation of your abstract data structure. But it is that only
>imaginable from the perspective of your process. On its own terms, it has no
>abstract progenitor, no fluid preverbal Gestalt. And on its own terms it 
>is vastly
>more useful that the particular instantiation of your abstract form, precisely
>because it may be locally instantiated, and prove locally useful as many other
>data forms than you narrowly envision.

Could you please give a concrete example, with angle brackets and code, 
that illustrates the problem? I agree that processing may impose semantics 
on data that was not envisioned by the creator of the data, but you seem to 
be saying more - that providing data types in XML data interferes with 
unforeseen reuse.

Please illustrate this with a concrete example.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: bohemians, gentry
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: bohemians, gentry
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • Re: bohemians, gentry
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: bohemians, gentry
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: bohemians, gentry
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Next by Date: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Previous by thread: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Next by thread: Re: bohemians, gentry
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread