Date:Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:26:30 GMT
Reply-To:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Proximity vs recordSchema
Comments:To: [log in to unmask]In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]> (message from Robert Sanderson on Thu,
12 Feb 2004 17:15:05 +0000)
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:15:05 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > > > Not that this should influence the argument either way, but Z39.50
> > > > thinks you can do proximity between elements:
> > > So does CQL!
> > well *that* should influence our thinking, shouldn't it!
>
> I admit to being responsable for that, at the 1.0 meeting in DC.
Well, don't say that like you're ashamed of it! :-) If you'd not
brought it up, I would have. I think it's crucial to be able to talk
about proximity in broader and less concrete units than words,
sentences, paragraphs, etc.
> We use element and subelement a lot with XML processing, but
> obviously it's all based on our actual data, not an abstract model.
> I don't see how you can have an abstract model that handles
> proximity between elements.
Sure you can. XML is not the only way to represent structured data,
you know! (You'll remember that the element and subElement proximity
units in Z39.50 predate the invention of XML (though not, of course,
of SGML).)
> A little last minute, but we -could- remove the 'element' unit, and
> I can re-invent it under an extension, if people think that it
> breaks the semantics of the abstract record representation.
Absolutely no!
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert
Einstein.
--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
