[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
The easiest way of fixing the tag abuse problem is by educating the writers. A good style guide and an editor (the human kind, not the XML kind) should do the trick. I'd love an automated solution, yes, but I have yet to see one that actually works, RDF and such notwithstanding. Best, /Ari At 22:53 08/06/2004, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >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. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
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
|