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

Re: RE: Interesting nodes are anonymous, was: Re: Me

• To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Subject: Re: RE: Interesting nodes are anonymous, was: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:38:29 -0400
• Cc: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>, "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E5202178F9E@R...>
• References: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E5202178F9E@R...>

On Jun 13, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Joshua Allen wrote:

>>>> implied by XML or RDF.  By XML "data model", I mean:
>>>>
>>>> a) you have a tree of nodes, and all nodes must have a name
>>>> b) a node may contain other nodes, literal values, or nothing
>>>> c) node values may reference other nodes
>>>
>
>
>> A correction on the statement that "all nodes must have a name".
>
> Right, I was talking about "XML data model" -- element and attribute
> names have to be named, and then the content nodes could be considered
> "values".  For RDF data model, I just said that properties (predicates)
> need to be named.  It seems when people model data in XML, that is the
> very thing that often gets overlooked (giving names to properties);
> especially in containment hierarchies.
>

Well see that is the problem with communication via serializations: I 
was trying to interpret what you were thinking and got it wrong. You 
see I assumed that because you were (in that case) discussing both RDF 
and XML in the same paragraph that you were talking about both. I 
looking back over this I now see that I was wrong.

But this is a big point in our whole discussion ... the more precise we 
can be in our communication the better we can understand what the other 
person intends. Sometimes that means *not* allowing the receiver to 
make willy nilly assumptions and interpretations about what the sender 
is sending. Communication implies *some level* of shared semantics. 
Shared semantics on the web might mean qualifying our terms (words) 
with URIs to the receiver can GET some information about what the 
sender is trying to say.

On the other hand it might also point out the fact that the receiver 
needs to have a working parser :-)

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: Interesting nodes are anonymous, was: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Interesting nodes are anonymous, was: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Next by Date: Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the semantic web - was Re: Meta-somethingorother
• Previous by thread: RE: Interesting nodes are anonymous, was: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread