• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:46:42 +0200
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC7CC@h...>

On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 18:41 Europe/Berlin, Bullard, Claude L 
(Len) wrote:

> Isn't that why some have suggested dereferencing the namespace
> to RDF or RDDL documents?  In other words, there are those
> pursuing solutions to this.  The fact that the name might
> serve a dual role (lexical disambiguation and named
> location) seems to work.  Why not?
>
because context matters. not just what's at the root or what's in the 
box.

it's the same problem as delegated authentication. it just has more 
levels.


> len
>
>
> From: james anderson [mailto:james.anderson@s...]
>
> naming the set of symbols is meaningless. one has to name the
> combinations. by which i do not mean the sequencing, dominance, and
> lexical constraints one can express in a document definition.
>
> a system which a-priori names the combinations according to the name
> used to disambiguate one of the respective lexical tokens is going to
> be a dead end.
>
> what does one do with versions? with variations in authority? what does
> one call it when it's a soap wrapper only, and a particular payload
> only, and in combination only? etc.
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Adding standalone="yes" to XML document
• Next by Date: Java SAX tools (was: Re: Adding standalone="yes" to XMLdocument)
• Previous by thread: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
• Next by thread: Re: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread