Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Jeff Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:16:01 -0500
Yes. That is what the Grove people were going on about.
The applicability of it has shown up in the VRML work
where after a year of trying to combine two node based
tree languages under a common object model,
a proposal from Sony is to now split
the two encodings (XML and VRML97) into separate
languages. The issue is the overhead of the XML
metalanguage vs the efficiency of APIs and object
models designed tightly for the application language.
Groves and grove plans would have allowed both languages
to share common property sets while having different
The problem will now be that the VRML-only language
will move quickly and that the XML language will suffer
the implementation overhead of the metalanguage and the
organizational overhead of trying to coordinate implementations
of the multiple evolving specifications will impact
the schedules and resources.
Difficult problem. Not abstract or philosophical.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jeff Turner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I was just thinking how similar the XML and LDAP data models are. LDAP
gives you a tree, where each node can contain data -and- can act as a
namespace for other nodes. This corresponds pretty closely to XML (or
Has anyone explored the possibility of crossover APIs for accessing all
these 'tree-like' data structures in a standardised way?