Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...> wrote in message 200501121345.j0CDj1v18371@s...">news:200501121345.j0CDj1v18371@s...... > Hi Folks, > > Suppose that: > > 1. There exist a collection of "components", and each component is > well-defined and understood. > > 2. There does NOT exist any rules which specify how the components should > be > assembled. > > If I assemble some of the components into a certain structure, and send > the > structure to you, will you be able to understand my structure? The question is very generic. There are cases where the answer is positive. Take FXSL: - Most of the functions and operators don't know about the existence of other functions. - Most/all functions can be combined in any arbitrary ways (that only must satisfy type rules) through functional composition - The result is easily understood, even in some more complicated cases An example: f:map(f:flip(f:round-half-to-even(f:sqrt(2, 0.000001))), 0 to 13) It is not too difficult to conclude that this evaluates to a list of numbers, each of which is a rounding of sqrt(2) (with precision of 0.000001) and the respective number of digits after the decimal point (from o to 13 digits after the decimal point). So, one is not surprised to see the following result: 1 1.4 1.41 1.414 1.4142 1.41421 1.414214 1.4142136 1.41421356 1.414213562 1.4142135624 1.41421356237 1.414213562375 1.4142135623747 So, there are systems (any system with support for higher-order functions), where it is possible to combine components in almost arbitrary ways and this is "by design". Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev > > Let me be a bit more concrete. Suppose that: > > 1. There exist a collection of information components, and each > information > component is well-defined and understood. Some examples of information > components might include - a missile information component (this component > provides information about a missile, such as its direction, speed, > warhead > type, etc), an aircraft information component (this component provides > information about an aircraft, such as its altitude, wingspan, speed, > etc). > > 2. There does NOT exist any rules which specify how the information > components should be assembled. In other words, there is no grammar which > dictates how the components must be bound together. > > If I assemble some of the information components into a certain structure, > and send the structure to you, will you be able to understand my > information > structure? > > Can information be transmitted in a world where the building blocks are > understood, but no grammar exists? > > Is a grammar necessary for information transfer? > > Let me give a simple example. Suppose that: > > 1. There exists these three components - A, B, C. And everyone knows the > meaning of each component. > > 2. There are no rules that specify how A, B, or C should be organized, nor > the number of occurrences of each. > > Suppose that I create this message: AACABBAC. And I send it to you. Will > you be able to understand my message? > > Consider the English language. Suppose that: > > 1. The English language was just comprised of a bunch of words (and each > word is understood), ... > > 2. ... but there was no English grammar. > > If I compose a sentence using these words, will you be able to understand > my > sentence? > > Consider XML Schemas. Suppose that: > > 1. An XML Schema declares a bunch of independent elements (i.e., > components) > and each component is understood. For example, here's a Book component: > > <xsd:element name="Book"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:all> > <xsd:element name="Title" type="xsd:string"/> > <xsd:element name="Author" type="xsd:string"/> > <xsd:element name="Date" type="xsd:date"/> > <xsd:element name="ISBN" type="xsd:string"/> > <xsd:element name="Publisher" type="xsd:string"/> > </xsd:all> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > Here's a BookCover component: > > <xsd:element name="BookCover"> > <xsd:complexType> > <xsd:choice> > <xsd:element name="Hardcover"><xsd:complexType/></xsd:element> > <xsd:element name="Softcover"><xsd:complexType/></xsd:element> > </xsd:choice> > </xsd:complexType> > </xsd:element> > > Everyone understands the meaning of each component in the Schema. > > 2. But there is no declaration tying the components together, e.g., there > is > no overarching element declaration that relates the Book component with > the > BookCover component. > > If I create an XML instance document using the components and send the > instance document to you, will you be able to understand my data? > > /Roger > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
