Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web pe
 Then the interesting development would be to use the RDF/ontology systems to inform the tagging systems by inspection. The problem of the tree model is even if there is a wildcard, that just means 'anything goes' and the user either uses one of the safe options (a contained element or attribute) or makes up one for the wildcard slot. An ontological system should be able to 'know' that the topic is munitions or flight controls and have a consistent if finite set of assertions for that topic even if the human doing the tagging doesn't. That doesn't solve the completeness problem but nothing does. Some element of danger remains. Now the problem is temporal awareness or context of application: is it ever possible that a person is under the aileron or in front of the engine and can one design a repair depot where that doesn't happen? Again, it isn't the machine that is dangerous; it is the environment. Most tagging dilemmas come down to engineering the environment, that is, meta-controlling it (which is also a self-limiting solution but ok). That is why street diggers put out traffic cones. They don't keep someone from driving into the hole, but they keep them from winning a lawsuit after they dig out. len From: Ari Nordstrom [mailto:mayfair@t...] The reason why the (mis-)tagging is a PARA and not a whole new tag, invented by an adventurous author, is simply that the system where the mistake was made requires validation. If validation wasn't required I'm pretty sure there would be a new tag instead. If you know people do this kind of thing, you want to remove as many possible mistakes as possible. It's a very good reason for validation, and enough motivation for a number of "mission-critical" systems, from airplane documentation to armed forces field instructions. See, PARA is bad enough, but it won't lose the information. A new tag just might, in some context. >Even more fundamentally, the real problem here is the necessity of the >warning in the first place. Most properly designed systems (munitions may >be an exception) should not be able to kill people. There should be >nothing in my toaster, computer, or microwave oven that can injure me >short of dropping it on my head from a high building. This should be true >regardless of what the manual says. The _system_ doesn't kill anyone, but the things the system is used to describe just might do that. Both of my examples above deal with information of that nature. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
