Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Would it be helpful to visualize it as Talmud, where the layers of commentary become, as they accrete, the target of further commentary or (a rather different point of view) new lenses through which newer commentary sees still older content? Or as the common law, where each precedent becomes, as above, both the target of new citation and a lens which skews later interpretations of older cases? I have begun to think that this ongoing creation of 'content' out of continually created meta-content is a fundamental intellectual process, and that there is little point asking for a defined boundary between the two which would apply to anything more that a particular instance (as the technical distinction which you cite in the spec is limited to an XML instance document, not to anything so ambitious as a 'class' of such documents, however schematically congruent its members). However, this too-facile blurring of distinction between an instance XML document and the 'class' of documents schematically congruent to it may be the most common failure of strict understanding in the XML community. And why not? The very notion of naming a GI seems inherently to imply to our minds that there are other instances just like the one being identified which share sufficient other properties beside the name given by the GI to all of them, and that the naming of them with that GI is in fact the discovery that those instances taken together are a 'class'. I am working on a project where the securities transactions chosen for a portfolio must be shown to correspond to the defined specifics of a trading strategy. Each such strategy has a name, which might usefully be considered the GI in which the strategy and, beyond the strategy, the trades undertaken in realization of that strategy are 'rooted'--effectively the base entity of that instance of content and meta-content. But the strategies change in all their subtle details, often daily, in direct response to the performance of the trades rooted upon them. To model this, it is not sufficient to maintain each day's version of the strategy as an instance root for the trades undertaken in that strategy on that day, because the ongoing positions generated by each of those trades will have unique and differing histories. Part of those histories is likely to be that each position is rebalanced, augmented or closed out at different times in accordance with then-current versions of the underlying strategy, or in accordance with a replacement strategy. IMHO the only way to 'evaluate' the correspondence of a portfolio of the moment to a strategy is to elaborate, by process, a unique instance of semantics which is utterly specific to the particular layering of putative content and meta-content, considering the instance at hand as a single whole of content, if only for the sole purpose of that particular operation of that process. Respectfully, Walter Perry bryan rasmussen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote: > > > is a tag name content or markup; or, is that a meaningful question? > > > > It's whatever you define it as, surely. > > Surely the XML specification defines it as markup. So the spec has > made that technical distinction to help with the processing. > > Cheers, > Bryan Rasmussen > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS > to support XML implementation and development. To minimize > spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. > > [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ > Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... > subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... > List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
