[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 08:24:48 -0600
Right. Which is why there are include and redefine
statements in XML schemas, yes? Components of schemas
instead of monoliths. Decentralized systems typically
are more robust than centralized systems. The success
of HTML was not in its design but in its effect; it
opened access to the discourse. After that, it became
a bottleneck to development. No size fits all purposes.
The issues are negotiation and interpretation. Lots
of levels here for theorists and practicioners alike.
As to having one schema language be better than lots:
it is practical to have one language to create languages,
it is not practical technically or politically to have
one language. Again, one system means no ambiguity,
but ambiguity is real, the system is not.
Something fun to do: compare Lenat's and Brooks'
approaches to AI. Which one do you think is more
robust given a position on bottom-up vs top-down?
If you really want to use XML for conceptual modeling,
this is a dilemma.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Single models (monolithic) fail in the real world not in the theoretical
In theory, people in a smoke filled room can agree a top-down
model of data interchange. In practice, the cannot. In theory, developers
can manage the state-space explosion inherent in processing
monolithic content models but in practice they cannot.