Object-oriented serialization (Was Re: Some questions)

[Matthew Gertner]

James Tauber wrote:
> Are you achieving this by expressing how certain element types relate to
> other element types and to concepts? A semantic network?
> 
> If so, you are still ultimately relating the elements to concepts you are
> probably going to define by human prose or running code.
> 
> I'm not arguing with this idea. I think it probably has some promise. But
> the real semantics are ultimately introduced into the system by agreed to
> concepts that aren't expressed via schemata. A schema is part of the
> picture, but not the whole.
> 
> I'll go back and read your Web Vision post.

As long as human beings are the only plausible "end consumers" of these
documents, their semantics will always be determined ultimately by fuzzy
things like intentions and expectations. The semantic constraints I am
talking about are one step away from these "ultimate" semantics; they
tell you that an integer contained in a given element cannot be greater
than 100, but they don't tell you why. These are still semantics to me
and they provide tremendous value when you want to process a broad range
of documents generically (which might, for example, involve generating
an application-specific interface for any arbitrary schema).

Matthew

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)