parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
—masonjd@y12.doe.gov
parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not writing a standard)? Graham's message, which he placed outside this thread, is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from the RM to the SAM and back.
parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not writing a standard)? Graham's message, which he placed outside this thread, is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from the RM to the SAM and back.
parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not writing a standard)? Graham's message, which he placed outside this thread, is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from the RM to the SAM and back.
parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not writing a standard)? Graham's message, which he placed outside this thread, is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from the RM to the SAM and back.
parid0463
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:06:43
When Steve says the RM is for someone who wants to "achieve subject location uniqueness for subjects that are specified by domain-specific relationship types", he's using language that's way out in philosophical territory, not something that sounds like the specification of "Document Description and Processing Languages" (with emphasis on "languages"). How can you write a conformance specification to something like that (and if you can't specify conformance, you're not writing a standard)? Graham's message, which he placed outside this thread, is appropriate: (to oversimplify greatly) we need a formula for getting from the RM to the SAM and back. |