🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BrrMAL.4HK@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, drraymon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Darrell Raymond) writes:
> In article <23254A@erik.naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> writes:
>> 
>>Especially harmful is ignoring things that turn out to be more essential
>>than the researcher thought.  This happens over and over, and I'm very
>>skeptical of anyone who argues that X is non-essential and therefore not
>>worth considering.  
> 
>   Thank you, Erik.  I'll repeat this to anyone that considers my problems 
> with SGML as being non-essential.  :->
> 
>>I'm willing to concede the point that the structure is the
>>essence, but SGML is in fact concerned with the linear representation,
>>and not with the structure per se.
> 
>   This is the communications-protocol view of SGML.  Would it be correct 
> to say, then, that the structure per se is captured in the DTD?  Or in
> both the DTD and some external programs?  Or just the external programs?
> Or just not at all? 

I take point with the above.  SGML is describes a document in a tree structure.
The document is then non-linear, instead it becomes 2D.  Also, a very important
feature is versioning or redlining (which I don't know the level of support SGML
has).  This makes a document more 3D.  A very important part of publishing is
to produce the most current version but also prior versions.
>     
>>I use SGML to define the syntax, and embed the semantics in
>>the application 
> 
>   Ok. This is not what a data model does, unfortunately for those who 
> thought that SGML was a data model (and perhaps that was only me).  A 
> data model defines semantics and is mostly uninterested in syntax.  The 
> relational model, for instance, defines what happens when you apply 
> operators to a relation (i.e., the semantics of the operators), but could 
> care less how you choose to represent the relation or the operators.
> 
>   What I hear Erik saying is that "the marked-up document is portable,
> but the meaning of it is anybody's guess".  This is directly due to
> the embedding of semantics in applications, and is the primary reason 
> that, without support from some data model, SGML will result in 
> non-portable, application-dependent documents.  
> 
> -Darrell.

An SGML doc is not self-describing alone to the outside world without the DTD.
And yes, SGML docs without internal DTDs fly about all of the time.  Can the DTD
describe the semantics about itself so that duplicate SGML docs don't end up
consuming space-probably.  Can it describe the semantics about relationships
between other docs that have the same DTD-maybe.  Can it describe outside
relationships to other docs-why?  This is not what SGML is for nor should it be.

George Raudabaugh
-- 
George Raudabaugh               Project Leader
Information Dimensions, Inc.    raudabaugh@idicl1.idi.battelle.org (work email)
5080 Tuttle Crossing Blvd.      
Dublin, Ohio  43017             (614) 761-7309                     (voice mail)