[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Does the count() function require access to the wh
There is a term denoting the relationship between x and y, x's ancestor, or vice versa: x and y are "in the same line of descent." Re "overlap": Temporal operator definitions for expressing the relationships between intervals in time take pains to denote between "overlaps" and "includes", and I think "inclusion" is absolutely preferrable for the node relationship under discussion, too. For a language to have words for relatives more distant than cousin wouldn't be very useful (except for genealogists). But some languages do make distinctions for close relations: In Hungarian, there are two words for "brother" and "sister" each, one denoting the older and the other the younger sibling (which doesn't help with sexless nodes ;-) ) (Other languages may even be less distinctive that English or German.) -W On 14/01/2014, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In a tree, two branches that overlap are also "nested," > > Agreed. But we are not in a tree! > > In fact, until the very end of the processing we don't know if we are > in a tree, or not! And we don't know if we are processing a > well-formed document or not. > > This is the nature of streaming and this is why we must avoid using > terms that make this nature hidden, or impose another, illusionary > nature of the process. > > What we have in practice is a string that hopefully must be the string > representation of a fragment (because we can't see the past or the > future-to-the-end of the string) of an XML document. > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Michael Sokolov > <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In a tree, two branches that overlap are also "nested," or whatever the >> more >> precise term is that we are grasping for, so we can use the terms >> interchangeably (in the context of a tree) without any loss of >> denotational >> scope. There's no need for a more precise, yet confusing for other >> reasons, >> word. >> >> If we lived on a planet where the only animals were human, we wouldn't >> need >> a word for humans, as long as we confined ourselves to speak about >> animals >> of our planet, even if we could understand the concept that there might >> be >> other kinds of animals on some other planet. >> >> By the way, in other languages, are there words for "second cousin twice >> removed"? English has a terrible way of referring to such familial >> relations as my grandmother's great-grandson (who is not my son or my >> sibling's). Perhaps in that language there is a word for co-ancestry or >> something. IE two people who are related by a direct line of ancestry >> (rather than related by marriage or on a different branch). >> >> -Mike >> >> >> On 01/14/2014 03:34 PM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>> >>> Well, to call something that is "nested" -- "overlapping" is probably >>> less precise as calling a human -- "animal" -- because a human is a >>> true subclass of Animal, while two overlapping concepts aren't >>> generally in a true containment relationship. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Michael Sokolov >>> <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> I know what it is that's trying to be expressed (although thank you for >>>> the >>>> lovely diagrams), but I disagree about the meaning of "overlap" - it is >>>> not >>>> nearly so precise as we might think it is, and certainly encompasses >>>> this >>>> situation. In various dictionaries you will see definitions such as >>>> "To >>>> have one or more elements in common." Another thought is: >>>> "coincident," >>>> but >>>> I prefer overlapping. >>>> >>>> -Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/14/2014 03:11 PM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> one vote for overlap. It seems the most obvious and (to me) >>>>>> unconfusing >>>>>> choice. >>>>>> Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other markup >>>>>> paradigms* >>>>>> will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, do they :) >>>>> >>>>> My brain is not contaminated -- at least not with "other markup >>>>> paradigms". >>>>> >>>>> Overlapping means this: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------- >>>>> ---------------|--------------- | >>>>> | | | | >>>>> | | | | >>>>> ---------------|--------------- | >>>>> ----------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But what "overlapping" is currently being used to label is this -- >>>>> this is called "nested" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> | --------------- | >>>>> | | | | >>>>> | | | | >>>>> | --------------- | >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Not only I find this very confusing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Michael Sokolov >>>>> <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> one vote for overlap. It seems the most obvious and (to me) >>>>>> unconfusing >>>>>> choice. Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other >>>>>> markup >>>>>> paradigms* will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, >>>>>> do >>>>>> they >>>>>> :) >>>>>> >>>>>> -Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/14/2014 11:44 AM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is wrong with "containment"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about "joined" and "disjoint"? >>>>>>> The other precise but not so short names are "directly-related" vs. >>>>>>> "non-directly related", or maybe "strongly-related". >>>>>>> Also: "disparate" vs. "contained" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Wendell Piez >>>>>>> <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Dimitre Novatchev >>>>>>>> <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I mean that within the set of nodes selected by //x, there may be >>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>> nodes A and B such that A is an ancestor of B. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (I'm not using the term overlap in the sense of non-hierarchic >>>>>>>>>> markup: >>>>>>>>>> perhaps that's the cause of any confusion). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes that is a big source of confusion. "Overlap" in its general >>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>> means that their isn't proper containment -- just intersection. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And this is not the case here at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be precise and clear to replace the term "overlapping" >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> something like "containment". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, this is hard because English appears not to have a verb that >>>>>>>> indicates a reciprocal ancestor/descendant relation. Ancestor nodes >>>>>>>> may contain, include or "dominate" descendant nodes, but since the >>>>>>>> graph is acyclic, nodes never contain each other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One could say more simply "a 'crawling' expression -- one that >>>>>>>> selects >>>>>>>> both ancestors and their descendants together". But that doesn't >>>>>>>> solve >>>>>>>> the problem for the spec, as in "For example, an implementation >>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>> be able to treat the expression .//title as striding rather than >>>>>>>> crawling if it can establish from knowledge of the schema that two >>>>>>>> title elements will never overlap" [18.1.1]. I suppose that could >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> rewritten too ... "no title element will contain another". Or "will >>>>>>>> never coincide". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does the spec need a term to indicate this relation in the general >>>>>>>> case? I agree that the term "overlap" is fraught with other senses, >>>>>>>> and should probably be avoided. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, Wendell >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com >>>>>>>> XML | XSLT | electronic publishing >>>>>>>> Eat Your Vegetables >>>>>>>> _____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^ >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Dimitre Novatchev > --------------------------------------- > Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. > --------------------------------------- > To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk > ------------------------------------- > Never fight an inanimate object > ------------------------------------- > To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the > biggest mistake of all > ------------------------------------ > Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. > ------------------------------------- > You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what > you're doing is work or play > ------------------------------------- > To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep. > ------------------------------------- > Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. > ------------------------------------- > Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they > write all patents, too? :) > ------------------------------------- > I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.
|
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
|