[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: words (RE: extensibility in XSchema?)
At 13:47 23/06/98 +0800, James K. Tauber wrote: [...] > >I take it that by the latter you mean action and behaviour. Or do you If these terms are standardised, then yes I do. probably. But I got the impression that they aren't completely standardised >include linking to ontologies as machine meaning? If the ontologies are read by a machine, then it's a machine meaning. Example: I have hacked SI units into XML. This is an ontological problem and not just a semantic one [e.g. what units are mg/kg? - please don't reply to this list :-)]. The resulting glossary is then used *by a machine* to convert units in a document. >Of the top of my head (thinking aloud as always), these are the sorts of >things one might want to say about the class of things (say elements) >labelled FOO. > >1. what FOOs can contain >2. where FOOs can be >3. what FOOs look like when presented >4. what FOOs do when the user does something >5. what an application is to do when it gets a FOO. >6. what other labels people use for FOOs. >7. what people mean by FOO. > >I'm sure there are others. I like this. Some convergence on this would be extremely useful for me - if not for others. For example, I have the following builtin procedures in JUMBO for any element: [3] display() = onClick(). Can take several arguments (e.g. display(Graphics g); [4] isLink() = resolve xml:link or whatever it is now called. Use onClick() for SHOW. [5] process() = apply recursive process() to subtree. [5a] isValid() = apply semantic validation > >Some of these are clearly syntax. Some are semantics. Some are something >else we are trying to come up with a name for. (note that they are related: >the meaning of an element will generally determine its content model but >that doesn't make semantics and syntax the same thing). > >I would tend to use 'syntax' for 1 and 2, 'presentation' or 'style' for 3, >'behaviour' for 4, 'action' for 5, and 'semantics' for 6 and 7. To avoid >'semantics', I might use 'thesaurus' in the context of 6 and 'meaning' for >7. > >I would then go on to say that one can 'bind' a particular label to one or >more of these, eg bind FOO to a particular syntax, bind FOO to a particular >style, bind FOO to a particular action, etc. I think this is worth pursuing. Is it worth trying to get a small, tight list here? P. Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic net connection VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|