Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really Exten
 Chiusano Joseph wrote: > <Quote1> > I am not saying that given sufficient _other_ information, that a > program cannot so interpret the snippet ... for example, application > level semantics. > </Quote1> > > Yes - I was actually thinking of "human-level" semantics; the ability of > a human to interpret the meaning of data based on its surrounding XML > tags. That's called a _specification_. There are loads of these. Some are good, some aren't. Nonetheless. > > <Quote2> > On the other hand, the XML Schema specification does not provide > such semantics. > </Quote2> > > I beg to differ - and I'm sure it's because I am looking at semantics > from a different standpoint here. I respectfully acknowledge our > different viewpoints regarding semantics, and do not in any way think > that yours (or anyone else's here) is incorrect. Just that I view the > meaning of "semantics" very differently. I'll respectfully step aside > from this debate, so as not to muddy the waters. As I said. The XML Schema specification does not specify a mechanism by which an XML Schema processor _alone_ makes use of <xsd:documentation> items. Indeed: " Annotations do not participate in ·validation· as such. Provided an annotation itself satisfies all relevant ·Schema Component Constraints· it cannot affect the ·validation· of element information items. " Now certainly a human can read such <xsd:documentation> items and draw conclusions as to the intended semantics of certain XML elements and attributes. What I am saying is that such conclusions are not defined _within_ the XML Schema specification, rather outside the specification. Your use of the term "semantics" for human readers seems quite correct. My point is intended more specifically for machine processable semantics, and particularly which specification licenses which semantics -- I've started by saying that XML 1.0 itself does not specify much in the way of semantics. The intention is that specifications which are layered on XML 1.0 provide an increasing degree of semantics. XML Schema does provide for simple datatype semantics (e.g. numbers, dates -- to some extent) but most applications need more. RDF and OWL provide another layer, though I expect that many applications, for example those that use RSS, might need even more, and in most cases we still need human level semantics i.e. readers of plain text. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
