On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Costello, Roger L. <> wrote:
> Thanks Tim, Shaun, and Ihe for your excellent comments.
>
> Below I try to address some of your comments.
>
> Ihe wrote:
>
> If you wanted all such software programs to behave
> uniformly with respect to the same syntax (please tell
> me why you wouldn't) what do you think you'd end up with.
>
> If I wanted every software program to behave uniformly upon receiving, say, some geolocation data (and be agnostic to its data format), then I would do this:
>
> I would have a layer that converts the particular data format
> into an abstract representation (perhaps as a list of values or
> perhaps as a tree data structure) and then I would have a software
> module (that is distributed to everyone) to process the geolocation
> data.
>
> It's the fact that everyone is using the same software module that ensures common semantic interpretation. Common semantic interpretation is not achieved via a common syntax.
>
So how does that differ from AN Other schema language/vocabulary and
AN Other schema parser to process it governed by AN Other set of
standards?
