RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

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

For the type to work as a type, it has to 
have some inheritable properties.  This 
one is so much "eye of the beholder" that 
it is basically a placeholder.  If we 
can get good information from others, 
yes.  Otherwise, I am for dumping it. 

NOTE:  We have not discussed properties 
of the types we have.  I had thought at 
some point we would have to take this up 
but I don't think now that it will until 
some secondaries are created.

One could talk about a "thought process" 
but even that is quite vague.  If we don't
dump it, we should put something like what 
you mention in the description.  I don't 
mind coming back and adding to the primary 
as more useful categories are discovered, 
but taking one out later will be painful. 
If a use is found for it, ok, but if it 
gets a lot of divergent uses without significant 
overlap, it will do damage.

I'd rather do less than more.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

Very good questions and exctly what I asked myself. I can argue 
almost any side of it except my own, which is to dump it as 
unworkable and vague, but then we see it in use everywhere all the 
time, and won't we be opening ourselves up for obvious ridicule if we 
don't at least deal with it in SOME way?

I want to hear more people's opinion on this. I'm for doing something 
like saying that thought itself is undefineable, so that it is there 
as a placeholder that at the very least does not invalidate anyone 
using it in an application that has to validate against our schemata. 
But heck, it is another one of those questions which I can see coming 
now: "And just HOW are we going to do THAT within XML Schema?"

Let's hear it, folks, this is a biggie. At least as big as do we 
define human as homo sapiens.