• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:45:55 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <E190qjd-00060S-00@b...>

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> Joe, BTW, I'm with you on selecting #2.  #1 and #3 probably mean that at some
> point there will come a need to break down the semantics in the complex GI, and I
> think that GIs should be as close to atomic as possible for the expected life of
> the data.

BTW my personal prejudice is also for #2, *but* #2 is just as likely to need to be
*composed* into a more monolithic form as #1 and #3 are likely to need
de-composing. And that's just the point. Once we posit the internetwork providing a
web relationship among processing nodes, once we truly expect reuse and
repurposing, it makes no sense to chose a markup style based on an anticipated use
downstream:  the most valuable uses over time will be the unanticipated ones.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• References:
  • Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
• Next by Date: Re: Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
• Previous by thread: Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
• Next by thread: Re: 3 possible approaches for representing concepts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread