RE: [xml-dev] XQuery types was Re: [xml-dev] Yet another plea for XUpdate...

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

As Uche aptly pointed out, people with a programming background
typically have a notion of types is derived from how they are treated in
programming languages and other aspects of Computer Science, not from
freshman philosophy classes. 

I am interested in XQuery types from a dynamic vs. statically typed
perspective and not whether from a philosophical point of view as long
as things can be grouped together they can be considered to have a
certain "type".

PS: When I said my background in formal CS theory was weak, I didn't
mean I don't have formal CS training but that I didn't have the
background to debate type systems to any great degree. For example any
of the following papers would go completely over my head 

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/geuvers93logics.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/31287.html 
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/kamareddine96correspondence.html
  
which in my estimation means I am not qualified to debate type systems
to any significant degree besides from a programmer's perspective. 

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
No matter how long or how hard you shop for an item, 
after you've bought it, it will be on sale somewhere cheaper. 
 
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@attbi.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:29 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XQuery types was Re: [xml-dev] Yet 
> another plea for XUpdate...
> 
> 
> Dare,
> 
> 
> > This thread is a waste of my time.
> 
> I don't think it is, honestly. Please go back and reread: 
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200205/msg00218.html

> Obviously you have
> refused to understand my point w.r.t. XQuery & updates

I changed the subject line _on purpose_ because I am not talking about
the relationship between XQuery and updates, rather XQuery types
themselves:

1) The debates about types in XML Schema and XQuery have been going on
for _years_ now, you are not the first, nor likely the last to get
involved with this. My strong impression is that everyone practically
has a totally different idea of what the term "type" means. Furthermore,
lots of people's eyes glaze over when any mention of the "PSVI" or sight
of the XQuery formal semantics appears. I am _honestly_ trying to give a
very simple interpretation of this.

2) IMHO the only rational way to understand types w.r.t. XML is not as
"static types" rather as classes. Think of classes as javascript
"expando" objects (for example).

3) When I say that types and validation are two different (albeit
related) things, I mean it. You said this was different than any formal
descriptions of types you've encountered. I provided a reference -- not
an esoteric incomprehensible reference, instead a reference that is

a) short -- i think the paperback is something like $9.99
b) relatively readable

Jonathan


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>