[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: description of the logical or semantic structure
It comes down to naming the reference for the semantic authority: 1. DOCTYPEs can do this with a PUBLIC identifiers but the scope is the entity. 2. Namespace URIs can do this if you can decide what is on the other end of the locator. 3. Comments can do this but might be stripped. 4. PIs can do this but might not be passed. 5. ANYUri in an attribute can do this but you have the same problem of item 2 and you have to fix a value for the att name so you are back in architectural forms land. This gets even weirder with aggregate documents (aka, mixed namespaces). The emails describing UI/nonUI issues on the TAG are deja vu for the MID project (you can't crack the nut of hypertext documents without admitting or obscuring the separation or union of controls with content, so you will produce something very abstract and not very useful, or something very concrete and not very evolvable and wind up back in architectural forms or class hierarchies for networked components). Or you punt this stuff away and weaken the warranty by loosening the fit and function. I tend to agree with Tim Bray's comment here, at the Berkman meeting and elsewhere that we do better to talk about the data we pass around and leave the driving to Hertz or Avis. As a vet, my worst days were trying to make a one size fits all specification for hypermedia systems. It wasn't that it couldn't be done, but that it had been done repeatedly and it looked like Windows every time until I worked with real-time 3D. The expansion there was to get away from buttons and menus and to model real objects interacting in real time via a network signified by routed events. For real time systems, the organizing principle is the event. The rest is mostly plumbing and layout. Now figure out the difference between a message and an event. Just try... :-) len From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...] > No, the tags in your markup are arbitrary strings. It's your > description of the markup "When I say Name, I mean personal > name" that conveys the semantics. There's arguably a default > description "When I use a tag that's an English word, I use > it with the same meaning as that English word", but that's > still something that's external to the XML document itself. > The tags have no meaning without an external explanation of > their intent and usage. Not sure if anyone is doing this (or has thought about it), but it seems to me that if one included a reference (URI) to an instance of an OWL class (or property of a class) then that can be a step in the right direction. So perhaps one could have: <Name owl-ref="www.someuri.com">Peter Smith</Name> where "owl-ref" (attribute name simply chosen by me for this response) refers to an OWL class/property that conveys that "This is the full name of a Person".
|
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
|