• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:30:06 -0600

Nope.  You simply shifted the burden to those who 
define the architectures:  the means to choose the means.

QED.  (Groves, Illuminati, Bilderburgers)(Pick One)) rule.  

Don't worry.  We ARE in charge of all things meaningful.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

Sorry, that was bad even for me. XLink is an example of what I mean. By
using the XLink architecture, there will be less need for agreement between
humans (or computers) on the meaning of the specific labels, because they
already know about the architectural label. So the difficult task that Len
talks about of human agreement reduces to apply only to those people who
need to know the specifics: in many cases this may be no-one.

• Prev by Date: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Next by Date: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Previous by thread: Re: Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Model Concepts?)
• Next by thread: RE: Getting The Pizza (Was Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Mode l Concepts?))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread