• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:32:05 -0800

At 07:48 AM 30/12/00 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Bingo!  That's why we need to agree on the next layer (i.e. the data
>layer), whether it be RDF, SOAP's serialization syntax, XTM, or
>something else.  That's where humans will encode their assumptions of
>meaning in ways that are not specific to single vocabularies.

Actually, I think that once you've figured out how to name
data objects, the door opens to a bunch of things, including
stylesheet directives, java classes, perl packages, schemas of
various media types and degrees of stringency, human-readable
documentation, you name it.  All of which are at some level
"semantics" - but I don't believe for a second that the world
is going to converge on any one way of expressing them. -Tim

• References:
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Begging the Question
    • From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...>
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: simple question on namespaces.
• Next by Date: Re: Thats me with my paranoya. Really - the last one. Re: Begging theQuestion
• Previous by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Next by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread