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

RE: infinite depth to namespaces

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>,Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 13:26:50 -0500

Most research in human-machine communication modeling 
and research into topics such as ontological commitment 
emphasize behavioral fidelity (aka, least surprise, 
don't shock the monkey).  In HCI research, after 
iterative stages of development, the dialog becomes 
system-directed (fewer ad hoc jumps, machine controls 
dialog).  The principles wherein each node does as it 
will or can with the information reflect human-to-human 
communication models.  These models typically demonstrate 
redundancy, false starts, fillers, use of anaphors and 
ellipsis (see Amodeus research).  Because these can 
add substantial overhead to system resource consumption, 
they are avoided in most machine-mediated communication.

If one envisages a continuum of communication behavior 
that is modified both in content and structure by iteration, 
human-to-human communication style is best applied in the 
early negotiation stage.  After domains and tasks are 
thoroughly understood by consenting parties, the more 
formal machine directed forms are better applied.

I think many of the contributors to this thread are 
considering only one extreme or the other of the 
communication curve of knowledge acquisition that 
leads to contract-based systems.

<bite>Until you know what they know, they don't know what you know.</bite>

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:matthew.fuchs@c...]

My goal is to better enable authors (of schemas and instances) to
better convey their intent (whatever that means) and allow application
authors to exploit that to write better applications more easily - I'm a
toolsmith.  While I'm not personally a big fan of the PSVI, I do know that
it's not intended to straightjacket anyone.

However, while I'm not at all concerned with what you do with information
internally, externally I'm very interested in how you behave if we're to do
business together.  It's important that you adhere to schemas we've agreed
to use, or my job of understanding you becomes very difficult.  This is
especially true if we're to do business in a community with many
participants - I can't possibly afford to build one-off processors for
everyone I do business with.

• Prev by Date: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: Really Understood W3C Schema Complex Types?
• Previous by thread: RE: infinite depth to namespaces
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread