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

RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone

• To: 'Jeff Lowery' <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:32:08 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

DOCTYPES are fine for DTDs as long as you accept 
extensibility in any instance that includes the 
DOCTYPE definition and/or own the system reference. 
A PUBLIC id specifies the owner organinization and 
the system ID tells you where to locate your version 
of that.  Why doesn't that work?  Are you really 
looking for someone to make your choices for you?

For schemas, nyet.  But for the Schema Definition 
language itself, da.  I don't know what RELAX NG 
is using for this. Anyone?

Levels.  Agreements are usually layered if negotiated. 
Blind exchanges should not be the way the web works. 

And if you plan to send the semantics with the message, 
Java and PDF are there to serve your every need. :-)

Why is this debate still being held every year?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...]

Which argues for a domain authority, which is why we have a proliferation of
vocabulary standardization organizations in OASIS and elsewhere. 

What are they using to indicate that entity x in in domain y? Namespaces?
Naughty naughty. Doctypes? I don't think so. There is no universally
accepted mechanism. Can that mechanism be contrived in XML?  I think so. I
think it has to. 

> If you resolve a namespace into something, then that must 
> contain both a syntax and 
> a mapping of that syntax to a model to be useful, or you are 
> stuck in text 
> processing rather than information.

And if both models are in XML format, I think all the better.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <mike@w...>
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Nicolas Lehuen" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread