[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Concept: Typed Versioning

Does Nodal have a concrete processing model? What is the link to the latest
architectural specification?
Sandy    (01)

> From: Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com>
> Reply-To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:38:18 -0800
> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Concept: Typed Versioning
> Resent-From: <klausner@cubicon.com>
> Resent-To: s.klausner@attbi.com
> Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 102 19:37:44 EDT
> Lee Iverson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 17:08, Eric Armstrong wrote:
>>> I see link types as something the user controls. ...The user
>>> sets a link type as one of (for example) response, counter-argument,
>>> inline inclusion, simple reference, like that. The way the system displays
>>> linked material is primarily determined by those types, and also controlled
>>> by the user.
>> These are clearly "semantic" categories and would have to reference some
>> sort of external ontological structure...  There is a possibility of
>> building these on top of more structural link types: dated vs. undated,
>> direct vs. relative, etc.
> In my view, that is correct. My impression of  them is something that
> would want to be built in at a higher level, in the engine that uses Nodal.
> When Eugene speaks of "link types", however, I think he has something
> slightly different in mind. I remember that there was a difference from
> past conversations, but don't recall what it was sufficiently well to
> represent his point of view. (So there may still be aspect of the concept
> that needs to be built in at a deeper level, as part of a Nodal engine, or
> something similar.
>     (02)