• To: 'Rick Marshall' <rjm@z...>
• Subject: RE: XML Vocabularies for Large Systems - 3 Philosophica lly Different Approaches
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:25:20 -0600
• Cc: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...

Yep.

The granularity question is undecided.  That is why document 
analysis usually precedes schema definition work.  Some might 
want to create a library of element types that are combined 
ad hoc into schemas as appropriate.   Tricky stuff.  Much 
easier with relational systems because they only have one 
structure and mapping the base datatypes is simpler, there 
usually being a limited range of implementations of relational 
systems in the ecosystem.

An ontology can deal with this, I guess, but somehow I see 
the semantic web as being more useful closer to the human 
view than the machine view.  I realize the hype goes in the 
opposite direction, but that is what I think.

len


From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@z...]

pretty soon we'll be talking normalisation and data dictionaries again ;)

rick

ps i thought this was exactly the domain of the semantic web.....

• Prev by Date: Re: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Next by Date: Re: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Vocabularies for Large Systems - 3 Philosophically Different Approaches
• Next by thread: RE: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread