A schema is only part of the story. A schema can only help determine
whether a given file is valid. It does not contain any instructions
about what the data means. In fact, I don't believe that anyone has
discovered a way to really teach a computer what any information
means. It's all just programmers defining various things to do with
the data.
This is somewhat off the point though. Once we establish that meaning
is something that only exists inside the human mind, and in the
practical case, the mind of a particular software author, the problem
becomes that of reliably deciphering the *same* meaning from the same
body of data. So the goal of any reusable data format should be to
reliably communicate this meaning to potential software authors. It
is my point that this cannot reasonably be done with a set of XML
tags alone. Nor would a schema do much good towards this end.
To accomplish the goal of communicating meaning, one needs a body of
Natural Language, in this case, English, with its words in the
context of its native Grammar and Syntax. This body should clearly
explain the purpose of the format in question, the meaning of each of
its elements, an define procedures for dealing with these elements.
It needs to be in a Natural language since human programmers are its
target parsers. This body of Natural language is what I refer to as
a "Spec", which is an abbreviation for "Specification. In that it
specifies the meaning and nature of a particular format.
However I believe it is not good enough for individual format authors
to simply invent a format, and explain its meaning. The goal is not
simply isolated storage and retrieval in the case of the internet,
but reliable interchange. If we each individually author our own
slightly different formats with overlapping goals, it becomes a
problem to coherently exchange data between these various systems
designed for divergent definitions of data. This is why standards are
important. Not because they feel good, but because agreeing on
specific formats and conforming to a single stated meaning for that
format is the *only* path towards reliable data interchange.
Everything else is just a wank.
On 09/02/2007, at 6:57 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote:
If I’m on the same track, then the “spec” you’re speaking of is an
xml schema (.xsd) file which takes care of defining your xml
elements. etc?
Kind regards,
Frank M. Palinkas
Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help
M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+
Senior Technical Communicator
Web Standards & Accessibility Designer
--------------------------------------------
website: http://frank.helpware.net
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------
Member:
Society for Technical Communications (S.T.C.)
Guild of Accessible Web Designers (G.A.W.D.S.)
Web Standards Group (W.S.G.)
--------------------------------------------
super group trading ltd.
Sandhurst, Gauteng, South Africa
website: http://www.supergroup.co.za
--------------------------------------------
Work: +27 011 523 4931
Home: +27 011 455 5287
Fax: +27 011 455 3112
Mobile: +27 074 109 1908
--------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Breton Slivka
Sent: Friday, 09 February, 2007 9:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WSG] is html done? [was semantics]
On 09/02/2007, at 4:14 PM, Geoff Pack wrote:
So <name>Joe Blogs</name> is meaningless with out a spec to tell me
that
'name' means a name, while <j79hfd98y28>[EMAIL PROTECTED]&*</j79hfd98y28> is
meaningful if a spec says so?
Absolutely correct. To a computer, any given string of characters
holds exactly the same amount of meaning as any other given string
of characters. It is the spec that defines how those characters
should be handled. The spec adds meaning to a system which
inherently has none.
"What if I write spec that says simply: "The meanings of all my tags
names are the same as the meanings defined in the Standard Oxford
English Dictionary"? What if I claim my spec to be the English
language?"
You still have to clarify:
1. Which definition of any particular word are you using in the
case of homonyms, and words with multiple related meanings? when
you make an <orange> tag, are you referring to the color, or the
fruit?
2. If you did make an <orange> tag, what would the contents of this
tag mean? The attributes?
3. If you converted your format to another format, say, vCard, can
you define a proceedure for doing so? Can a computer infer one?
The spec defines what a computer is doing with the data. XML is not
a magical file format, you still need to do the dirty work of
teaching the computer what to do with it, and what it means.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
