• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Data vs. Process was Re: VocabularyCombination ...
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:32:40 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1026-C6111F0C946C11D7B5F00003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]><000701c3287d$67c9b040$b6f5d3ce@L565> <200306012149.51950.miles@m...>

[Miles Sabin]

> Jonathan Borden wrote,
> > When a pharmacist sees a drug interaction that the doctor hasn't, the
> > intention is to flag this, and contact the doctor for more
> > instructions ... this is exactly what ontologies (and schemata in
> > general) are great at: spotting inconsistencies.
>
> Uh huh ...
>
> And to bring this back to the starting point of this thread: haven't you
> just described a _process_?

It's more like one of Walter Perry's third-party enhancements that was not
part of the original design.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • Re: Data vs. Process was Re: Vocabulary Combination ...
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Data vs. Process was Re: Vocabulary Combination ...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Data vs. Process was Re: Vocabulary Combination ...
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Following up ... a "Living without W3C Namespaces" manifesto?
• Next by Date: Stylesheet
• Previous by thread: Re: Data vs. Process was Re: Vocabulary Combination ...
• Next by thread: Re: Data vs. Process was Re: Vocabulary Combination ...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread