• To: 'james anderson' <james.anderson@s...>
• Subject: RE: Symbol Grounding and Running Code: Is XML Really E xtensible?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:41:41 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

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?

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...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Adding standalone="yes" to XML document
• Next by Date: [ANN] <oXygen/> XML Editor 2.0.3
• 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