Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Maybe I'm missing the point, but that sounds an awful lot like the arguments the groves supporters make; the need for exhaustive defintition of the complete tree including all of the hidden values which the properties of the abstractions infer (eg, like the problem of the hidden namespace declarations when using stylesheets). Yes? No? Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@f...] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:38 PM To: XML DEV Subject: Re: Ontologies Ronald Bourret wrote: > Could you explain at a technical level what is happening? It sounds like > a node contains code to extract whatever it needs from the input, but > that this code must be written explicitly. That is: > > "The point is that in all these cases there is processing > code--unique to each node--to be written, and nothing will > magically obviate that chore." > > Is this correct? I would not use the term 'extract'. An integral step in the processing at each node is instantiating the particular data structure(s) which the node's specific process expects. This work is a necessary part of coding any executable process: even in those cases where the whole of the data structure required is passed in through a well known API, the executable code must instantiate the process instance of that data.
|
