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

XML word processors and the SW (was Re: First Order Logic ...)

• From: Joel Rees <rees@s...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Joel Rees <rees@m...>, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:35:00 +0900

[clipped]

> When it was suggested early in the XML rhubarb
> that DTDs would go away, (well-formed only),
> I laughed.  It removes the biggest advantage
> of SGML:  standard vocabularies for focused
> domains, the easy means to annotate a text with inline
> metainformation for interpretation.  Now people
> are defending DTDs against the next new thing
> and so it goes, but the principle remains:  once
> you get beyond a simple message, well-formedness
> isn't enough.  You need the metadata to get around
> the outrageous and inefficient noise reduction
> techniques of open text searching.

My company is betting that there will be a large range of applications for
which one would rather not have the DTD in the way.

I tend to figure that DTD-less is an intermediate step, something to use
while trying to get a grasp of what a document class should include and what
it should not.

When I think of writing XML documents with a word processor, I imagine
formatting some piece, then selecting a range and assigning a semantic tag
of my choosing to it. The word processor should split the semantic XML from
the formatting XML, then save the format as an XSL document and the semantic
as straight XML.

An automatic DTD generator should eat a batch of similar files (possibly
built from a single original as a template) and spit the DTD out as whatever
is needed to describe everything in the batch.

When editing the doc, a palette would appear showing the current set of tags
not made directly manipulable by the current XSL.

So, following this line of reasoning, SW would simply take a DTD and allow
selecting a node/nodeset and attaching some attributes or child elements
that specify some common/standard qualitative semantic?

How far in the future am I imagining? I know Microsoft is doing the
smoke-and-mirrors about Word saving as XML. Any bets (or inside info) about
whether they have even considered semantics issues?

[clipped]

> When fly-by-wire guidance systems were first
> introduced (an expert system for airliners)
> they scared the designers witless.  In fact,
> some of them did fly jets into the tarmac
> and there were horrendous accidents (chaos
> outs complexity and real time systems courses
> don't treat chaos theory lightly).  However,
> everytime you get on an Airbus and cross the
> Atlantic, a bot is at the controls with a
> human pilot manager.   So, with experience,
> it can be done.
>
> Just don't fly on the first one.

Oh, but that's the one thats most fun!

> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

Joel
============================XML as Best Solution===
Joel Rees                          $B%j!<%9!!%8%g%(%k(B
Media Fusion Co.,Ltd.  $B3t<02q







References:

RE: First Order Logic and Semantic Web RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic W	eb
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>




Prev by Date:
Defining XML Best Practices

Next by Date:
RE: Generating a DTD from XML files?

Previous by thread:
RE: First Order Logic and Semantic Web RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic W	eb

Next by thread:
SAXParser stumbles over internal DTD declaration

Index(es):

Date
Thread