RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Our Next Meeting

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

That didn't copy well.  I was adjusting the content model:

<!ELEMENT sign (sign*, signifier, signified+, referent) >
<!ATTRIBUTE sign
  id ID #REQUIRED
  type (symbol | icon | index) #REQUIRED >

A signifier may be associated with multiple signifieds. 
That may be a place to put context modifiers.  But if 
type indicates a relationship between signifier and 
signified, does it apply to all of the possible 
signifieds?  If that is so, then we should go at 
this one again.  Even the most simple markup approach 
will not be easy past the first draft. ;-)  That 
is why I am deliberately not filling in more elements 
than this one, nor am I claiming it to be the root.

Also, a sign and a signifier are essentially the same 
thing, yes, so we could drop that or use it as a 
container for representations (eg, refer to pictures 
of images) for cases where we know a sign can have 
multiple forms.

Comments?

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>