[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Adam Bosworth on XML and W3C
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tom Bradford <email@example.com>,"Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:49:13 -0500
Complexity is view dependant: in the eye of the beholder.
That is why scale is an issue. At fifty feet, a ball of twine
is a point. At five feet, it is a rough sphere. At one inch,
it is a curved cylinder. At 1/100 of an inch, turned on end,
it is a rough filled circle. Unwound and on end, at five feet,
it is a point. And so on.
Sometimes one sees complexity and chaos theory referred to as
"non linear foolishness". It isn't exactly, but one does have
to know how to apply it. Bosworth isn't all wrong but not all
In some points of view and for some tasks, XML Schema
will work just fine. For others, limited results. Complexity
is not the issue except insofar as a predictor of costs for results.
DTDs worked but we wanted the costs of dual syntaxes removed. When
we did that, readability went down. So we traded-in features and
pushed complexity elsewhere. Did we get an overall reduction in costs
for the advantages of well-formed systems? Yes, I think so but
we decreased the overall predictability of using the system and
pushed the choice of choosing among constraint enforcement
elsewhere (SGML - choice is in the standard. XML - choice
is the system owner or implementor's).
Point of view, scale, choice of choices... all the problems
of systems engineering writ big because they intesect with
choices of authority.
From: Tom Bradford [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 1:39 PM
To: Fuchs, Matthew
Cc: Bullard, Claude L (Len); firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Adam Bosworth on XML and W3C
"Fuchs, Matthew" wrote:
> I think both are relevant - schema is consumed by both carbon and silicon
> agents. For two markup related examples - ambiguous content models and
> Murata Makoto's work with hedge automata. There seems to be a human
> (carbon-based agent) predilection for ambiguous content models because
> can be easier to write, but they can cause problems for the behavior of
> programs (silicon-based agents). Likewise, Makoto's work is very elegant,
> and implementation may not be so hard (low Kolmogorov complexity), but
> are cases requiring exponential processing time, which is why I was
> using them directly in Schema (when I heard "exponential" I thought
> "denial-of-service attack").
> It would be awesome if there were some way to relate the formal complexity
> measures with psychological complexity. Do you know of any sources?
Uhhh... Again in English, please? Thanks.