Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy?

At 02:02 PM 6/22/00 -0700, Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> It's a much less loaded word, one I'm much happier to work with.
>
>Agreed with one caveat: at least a couple years ago, a lot of articles in
>the trade press used "XML vocabulary" to mean something parallel to "SGML
>application"; IOW, a language in the sense that you *don't* consider
>applicable to namespaces.  If I wanted to be pedantically precise, I'd say
>"collection of terminology" or even just "terminology"; I kind of hate to
>be pedantic, but this discussion has seen plenty of people who are using
>"resource" to mean "an abstract entity about which one can make
>statements" talking over the heads of those who are using it to mean "a
>collection of bits that can be retrieved via TCP/IP," and
>vice-versa.  Sometimes you really do need language so precise it verges on
>legalese.

I agree, though 'terminology' comes more of a suggestion of common
practices that does mere vocabulary.  Maybe 'a collection of words' is the
best we can hope for.

>IMHO, Dublin Core is a perfect example of a case where a namespace can
>meaningfully identify a vocabulary or terminology, but not a language in
>any technical sense (e.g. following Chomsky) of the term.

I rarely if ever follow Chomsky, but still agree with your general
statement.  XLink is another case where this may apply - while it certainly
comes with semantics, it's utterly incomplete on its own.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 22:53:36 UTC