• From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:47:41 +0000

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote:
> Thanks Tim, Shaun, and Ihe for your excellent comments.
>
> Below I try to address some of your comments.
>
> Ihe wrote:
>
>     If you wanted all such software programs to behave
>     uniformly with respect to the same syntax (please tell
>     me why you wouldn't) what do you think you'd end up with.
>
> If I wanted every software program to behave uniformly upon receiving, say, some geolocation data (and be agnostic to its data format), then I would do this:
>
>     I would have a layer that converts the particular data format
>     into an abstract representation (perhaps as a list of values or
>     perhaps as a tree data structure) and then I would have a software
>     module (that is distributed to everyone) to process the geolocation
>     data.
>
> It's the fact that everyone is using the same software module that ensures common semantic interpretation. Common semantic interpretation is not achieved via a common syntax.
>

So how does that differ from AN Other schema language/vocabulary and
AN Other schema parser to process it governed by  AN Other set of
standards?

• References:
  • Four fine text-based data formats ... liberate yourself from one(silo) data format
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Four fine text-based data formats ... liberate yourselffrom one (silo) data format
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • RE: Four fine text-based data formats ... liberateyourself from one (silo) data format
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>