[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
- From: Tony Presti <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>,xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:03:52 -0500
I remember those G3 and G4 spec issues when attempting imagery integration for
And you are correct, Len - the issue IS XML approach with RDF schema. XML and
associated schemata approaches can only work within limited domain constructs
for semantic applications. The addition of RDF schemata to XML apps seems to
hold much more promise for reduction of computational intensity in large-scale
or (dare I say it?) unbounded semantic web knowledge assembly.
Regards, Tony Presti
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Reuse is the devil. We faced the TIFF specs for faxes
> some years ago at GE for embedded IETMs. They were cited
> but we had to dig out the fact of the 200dpi and explain
> to the customer that was unacceptably low for the application:
> (Good function, mediocre form, bad fit) because we were displaying
> schematics and 200dpi won't cut it. OTOH, 1000dpi, the norm
> for print at that time was overkill. 300dpi, the average
> for laser printers then, was the sweet spot.
> Reapplication, reuse, robustness, emergence per mixed requirements,
> these force one to understand the details.
> If the schema language is too hard to design with *conceptually*,
> tools will make very little difference given equal features.
> On the other hand, acceptable difficulty and feature richness
> such that one tool can be reapplied in several domains, that
> is usually worth the cost.
> *Any* design from *any* contributor, be they brilliant eccentric,
> majorCo, or mundane hacker with contextual inspiration, that does
> not take out cost in some form (not just cheaper, but amplification
> of effort), is just more stuff. We already have TooMuchStuff.
> For XML Schema, Trex, Relax, whatever, to be
> killer, it must be directly applicable to immediate
> For example, James says TREX is for validation., I have DTDs for that.
> TREX has to do more, not just be easier to do. DTDs aren't hard
> now from the perspective of the language designer. So, just as
> in the DePH myth, harder for whom? More complex for whom?
> My intuition at the moment is the battle is between RDF and XML Schemas,
> not XML Schemas over all.
> MSXML 4.0 is on the street with XSD support today.
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
> Anyone want to pick up the thread ... is something like W3C XML Schema a
> "good thing" after all if it can be wrapped up in user-friendly tools? Or is
> its "power" (aka "complexity") too great to fully encapsulate inside a
> friendly interface?
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org