Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Piatko wrote: > So far on this list I've seen 2, well 2.5, interpretations: > > (1) A ulabel should have a 1-1 mapping to its "meaning" (a word I am being > intentionally vague about). > > (1.5) Believes in (1) and introduces local elements in the hopes of some > modularity. > > (2) A ulabel can map to multiple meanings. Other mechanisms (context, a > schema, calling up someone on the phone) might also be employed to fully > disambiguate the meaning. > > When groups with different interpretations meet, sparks fly, harsh words are > spoken Which I think is the whole point of XML. Anarchy at the global level, with locally non-chaotic bits where people meet to do work, but with no technical basis for _everybody_ being able to get together except parsing. >, and Simon creates a filter to bridge the semantic gap. ;-) Maybe > such filters are the best we can hope for. Quite possibly -- both a strength and a weakness of XML. -- Ron
|
