[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [topicmaps-comment] multilingual thesaurus - language, scope,and topic naming constraint
Paul Prueitt "psp" <beadmaster@ontologystream.com> writes: > You are saying > > " We > believed that, if a topic is supposed to be > considered a member of a scope, then, by Golly, it > should appear inside the corresponding <scope> > element. Otherwise, the syntax becomes > unlearnable, because it is too tricky." > But this is not how the brain works. And the brain > is the only system that can do knowledge processing > at this time. Somehow the brain has a by-pass that > avoids the very problem that you say prevents late > binding of scope. I'm baffled as to the relationship between what I was talking about and whatever it is that you're talking about. I don't want your readers to think that I said the things that you're saying I said. I didn't say anything about the brain. I did not mention a problem that prevents late binding of scope, since I don't know what "late binding of scope" means. I did not use the phrase "late binding" at all. I was talking about the XTM information interchange representation, and saying that it was designed to be as simple and intuitive as possible. The person I was responding to had suggested that the value of the xml:lang attribute should be added to XTM and be considered to specify a scoping topic, even though this would make natural language topics the only class of topics that would not appear in the normal way within the content of the appropriate <scope> element. I was saying that I didn't think that this suggestion was a good idea. That's all. -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant srn@coolheads.com voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax: +1 972 359 0270 1527 Northaven Drive Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC