Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jeremy, thank you very much - this sounds most interesting. Could it be that that the designers of XPath/XQuery/XSLT might assimilate and possibly generalize some of the concepts which have been developed for the dynamic construction of technical documentation - a construction which, abstractly speaking, can be regarded as the imposing of secondary structures on a primary node forest? It seems to me a perfectly reasonable idea. Would you agree that it is at least conceivable?
Hans Von: Jeremy H. Griffith <jeremy@o...> An: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...> Gesendet: 22:06 Samstag, 17.August 2013 Betreff: Re: XPath and a continuous, uniform information space - Recap On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 17:53:03 +0100 (BST), Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@y...> wrote: >Experiment #3: In experiments #1 and #2 the single map - or the set of maps - were a part of the node data, the node itself "decided" in which graphs to participate. There is something limiting about that. We may want to define new structure after-the-fact: without disturbing the nodes pulled into the graph, like a map does not disturb its entries. So an alternative would be to impose such nested maps purely from without - our info space would be a node forest *and* a collection of graphs connecting (reconnecting) nodes of that forest. But I have no idea how to define such graphs. I feel it would be a new kind of resource whose information content would be a graph definition interconnecting conventional nodes. To someone who has been immersed in technical documentation toolmaking for a long time, this sound a lot like what we are already doing with formats like DITA: http://www.dita2go.com/ditaspec/_dita-1.2-specification.htm and Mallard: http://projectmallard.org/1.1/ The individual documents/nodes are designed for re-use in any map to generate the final result, and can be in many maps at once, and even in the same map multiple times (in different branches). By design, the nodes have no info on the maps, and the maps contain pretty much only references to nodes (and to other maps). The maps/graphs are therefore defined by the author of the document, who is the person who imposes them from without. >Do you feel the spirit of the whole approach? Not replace our node model, but to add to it - I am convinced that this is the way to go. And I am excited about how you and the other participants in this discussion gradually expose a new potential which might be tapped by introducing additional structure into the node forest which is and remains (if only for me) the ground layer from which to unfold the space. Yes, this is very workable... and the ideas have been a part of tech docs since the 1960's. Well proven. -- Jeremy H. Griffith <jeremy@o...> DITA2Go site: http://www.dita2go.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
