An XML property set has been defined, but that's not the big picture.
The notion of groves came out of the SGML world, but is not limited to
SGML or any markup language for that matter. In order to link to a
chunk of data -- be it a sentence in a Word document or a still frame in a
movie -- you need to be able to address that data. In order to address
that data, you need to know the document's data model.
What you don't want to do is force all document types into a single data
model. That's ludicrous. Presently, there isn't even one standard data
model for XML documents.
Ideally, what you'd like to have is a metalanguage for describing a
document's data model. That way, all you need to address a document (and
subsequently link to it or do view control or whatever) is the document, a
description of the document's data model, and an engine that can read the
data model description and parse the document accordingly. Note that this
also allows you to define multiple data models for a document type, so
there doesn't have to be only one way to address a document.
Here comes the disclaimer: I have a very, very rudimentary understanding
of groves; in fact, I welcome anyone who knows more about groves to speak
up. But I understand enough to know that it's the right direction.
Whether or not it's the right technology is something that we need to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Eric Armstrong wrote:
> Gack. I did't realize groves were sgml.
> Is an xml version part of what Eugene is
> "N. C a r r o l l" wrote:
> > Had a look at groves. It didn't make my day, but then SGML
> > rarely does.
-- +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== firstname.lastname@example.org ===== http://www.eekim.com/ ===+ | "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they | +===== can have an excuse to drink alcohol." --Steve Martin ===========+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:58:01 PDT