[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE:different communities III
- From: "Vegt, Jan" <Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com>
- To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 12:20:34 +0100
part III and final of this 2001 data space odyssey
In the real world "in" a text document, if we need an interpretation of a
word we consult our lexicons or specialized terminology. Sure definition is
a paradox, but it works. Sure at higher encoding levels we sometimes need
some law enforcement. Don't worry, RELAX, XSchema protects and serves us to
keep the bad characters and other unresponsible elements out.
The point is (finally): if we can solve the hard problem in neuro-logical
space there is no reason why we cannot solve it in easy, binary logic space.
There will be better ways eventually, there always are.
Now let me apply this incredible Len Bullard compression algorithm :
"Negotiations are only succesful if scoped".
>XML 1.0 standardized the 'relatively easy' stuff for markup itself, though
>I wish more and more that DTDs had been defined in a separate document.
From the data modeller's perspective I would have preferred moving up
namespaces as an 'interpretation context indicator' to the XSchema level.
From the librarians perspective I would have liked moving down RDF into
XSchema. That is currently cultural territory though, maybe in 3-5 years.
The only thing changing as we pump out bits into the world is data size
granularity and the labels we apply to it. Tell me how you define document
and I tell you who you are.
Simon, I am just wondering if the problems you see with XML are really
fundamental or just an indication that your namespace needs to shift a
I don't hope you get the idea this is a personal rant against you or
something. I believe the general idea of a general markup language to be
important and valid. Too much prior art not to be sensible. (Humans are not
that original in thought).
Personally I want to experience better dimensions of the global metamedium
(see previous posts) in my lifetime. Yuri opened up that Pandora box for me,
I want to experience it.
Remember McLuhan, fishes didn't discover the water. When you want to
discover England, go to France.
If I look at the XML DTD book you wrote (and which I own) I find it
'document' (semi-structured data) oriented. Which is great, documents are
great data containers. To enter the world of structured data try "XML and
SOAP" book by Brian Travis. Great pieces on SGML and XML, skip the BuzzTalk
stuff (not Brian's fault). For some dynamic insights into XML, pick up Don
Box's "Essential XML", and enter the exciting world of XML as "better
component technology". XML is data on the move. Futureproof.
Some other links : 'The order of things' by Barbara Ann Kipfer, and of
course Wurman's 'Information Anxiety(2)'
>I'm not convinced that we can find nearly as much uniformity of purpose at
>any level beyond the foundation.
We'll see, if it breaks, we'll fix it.
[ snip ]
>Something like that, rather than solving all problems with a single set of
>tools, seems like a less combative and potentially more extensible
>approach. Assuming that a single solution is possible by merely separating
>the technical from the political seems to me like a recipe for unrewarding
>collisions and pileups over the next few years.
We as humans are awfully limited in being able to solve large problems, so
how do we fit here and why did we survive. I guess just by splitting up
large chunks into managable size stuff. Modularization, extensibility sounds
good to me.