OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] PSVI formalization

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Isn't the issue, instead of whether or not we need another Schema
language, how do those schema languages interact when defining
semantic modules that can be re-mapped into different bigger 
markup languages, to limit the space of N^N by using atomic
language modules instead just tags and attributes as the smallest
unit of semantics?
- Sebastian

	-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht----- 
	Von: Matthew Gertner 
	Gesendet: Do 09.05.2002 18:35 
	An: 'Simon St.Laurent'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org 
	Betreff: RE: [xml-dev] PSVI formalization

	Cool, I was about to respond to your other post, but this is a
much clearer
	formulation of the issue. Your initial premise is exactly right:
what gets
	developers excited about XML is the prospect of schema-enabling
	Certainly that's true for me (your humble PSVI poster boy), and
you're also
	right that I don't like CDATA, NOTATIONs and the like.
	I think where you are missing the boat is the assertion that
somehow there
	could be some alternative representation of the PSVI that
wouldn't be XML
	but would satisfy all the gearheads out there. Frankly this is a
crazy idea.
	It took decades for something like XML to appear, and it's a
huge boon. We
	are developing software right now that uses XML along with
schema (having
	created our own version of the PSVI two years ago), and we also
use XML
	parsers, XML editors, XPath, XSLT and a whole slew of other XML
	and tools. Why on earth would we reinvent the wheel when XML
works for us!?
	Just to preserve the "purity" of the language for the benefit of
some markup
	Someone on XML-Dev recently hit the nail on the head when they
talked about
	the N^N complexity of XML integration. The only solution is to
have commonly
	agreed-upon semantics for the documents, as someone else pointed
out. The
	most basic semantics relating to structural and datatyping
constraints are
	contained in a schema, and already make a lot of generic
	possible. Without this, you really can't do anything useful with
an XML
	document without writing specific code, and the whole
XML-on-the-web vision
	falls apart.
	I simply can't get away from the suspicion that your objection
lies more in
	the specific instantiation of XML Schema, PSVI, XPath, XQuery,
etc. rather
	than the underlying concepts. If you're such as schema skeptic,
why did you
	waste all of that time with DDML? The idea of well-formed vs.
	documents has been around since the genesis of XML, and I don't
	anyone getting upset about it until we started being faced with
an array of
	200-page specs that no one can understand. I would submit that:
	1) You are upset to see a 35-page spec turn into a 160-page spec
	assorted dependencies in other huge specs (XPath), and this is
	understandable. The notion of strong typing in XPath doesn't
seem so
	horrible to me, but the bloat of the spec does. In other words,
the W3C is
	increasingly unable to produce simple specs.
	2) You are upset because it is harder and harder to divorce
	documents from valid documents. In other words, the W3C is
	unable to produce layered specs.
	I can't imagine an objection to the notion that XML can be
associated with a
	schema, and when it is it becomes a valid document and the
behavior of
	certain associated specs is extended accordingly. For example,
XPath can do
	design-time type checking. If there is no schema, the document
	well-formed and this "baggage" is ignored.
	Maybe you are being purposely provocative (I can relate, lord
knows), but
	the idea that XML+schema is somehow no longer in the spirit of
XML is
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
	> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 5:15 PM
	> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
	> Subject: [xml-dev] PSVI formalization
	> Recent discussions here about XQuery, XPath 2.0, and their
	> relationships with W3C XML Schema have made me think a fair
	> amount about
	> the relationship between XML and W3C XML Schema, particularly
	> Post-Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI), more deeply. 
	> There were a bunch of presentations last year about how XML +
	> XSD -> XML
	> 2.0, something I found merely annoying then but which makes
more sense
	> now.  The community that craves these features is poorly
	> served in many
	> ways by XML 1.0, with its text orientation, structures that
	> can be loose
	> to the edge of complete unpredictability, and a
	> requirement that is incredibly verbose but useful in many
	> cases only for
	> debugging stages.
	> XML 1.0 is now more and more buried under layers of other
	> and the common foundation for W3C work moving forward appears
	> to be the
	> PSVI - or at least an enormous amount of effort is going into
	> integrating the PSVI with a large number of projects, and it
	> seems that
	> most of the vendor and programmer excitement these days is
focused on
	> the PSVI, not the brutish markup that lurks underneath.
	> The PSVI seems to be what programmers and database folks want.
	> offers strongly typed and highly structured information,
	> guaranteed to conform to their expectations.  It has the same
	> named hierarchies that XML offers, with none of the messy
	> concerns about
	> character encodings, CDATA sections, or the limitations of
text for
	> storing binary information.
	> At the same time, the PSVI is pretty difficult to express in
	> Layers of type information can make it complex to pin down how
best to
	> describe a particular piece of information.  Object-oriented
	> development
	> manages that every day, but doesn't have to express the whole
	> hierarchy
	> for every piece of information in a flat representation.
Given recent
	> discussions of synthetic PSVIs, it's not always clear that
	> XML+schema->PSVI.
	> I'm concluding from all of that that XML is not a good
foundation for
	> the kinds of information developers want from the PSVI, and
	> retrofitting XML to carry that information is perhaps the
	> root cause of
	> the complexity explosion we're seeing in W3C XML Schema and
	> specifications which build on it.  It seems to me that it
	> might be wiser
	> to use the PSVI directly for more abstract information
modeling rather
	> than expecting XML representations to carry the load.
	> So where does this take us?  Developers who want to work with
the PSVI
	> should work with the PSVI, and not worry about XML.  The kind
	> interoperability the PSVI is designed to provide is very
	> different from
	> the kind of interoperability that XML provides - a perfectly
	> reasonable
	> conclusion given the different situations leading to the
creation of
	> their respective specifications.
	> Beyond that, it seems like some easily-exchanged
representation of the
	> PSVI is in order.  XML works, sort of, but it seems pretty
	> obvious that
	> there are better approaches to representing information if
	> you have all
	> the information the PSVI provides rather than a simple "all is
	> approach.  This could easily be a binary format, though text
	> might also
	> be an option.
	> XML has done a wonderful job of convincing the world that it
	> is possible
	> to agree on base formats for some kinds of information, and
	> that generic
	> tools (parsers, editors, etc.) can be useful for a wide
variety of
	> specific problems.  It seems reasonable to suggest that the
lesson of
	> XML is not "everyone must use angle brackets and text" but
rather that
	> "shared information formats are really useful when supported
by a
	> reasonable set of tools".
	> Given the immense bias in current XML work at the W3C toward
	> support for
	> the PSVI, it seems like it might well be time to find an
	> means of expression for the PSVI.  Conversions from strongly
	> typed PSVI
	> to loosely typed XML should be trivial, while XML to PSVI
should only
	> require a W3C XML Schema (or other PSVI generator) to provide
	> necessary information.
	> PSVI processors could use or extend existing XML
	> replacing only the bottom layer - the parser - and possibly
	> its own structures for the layers above.  I suspect that
	> taking the PSVI
	> to its fullest potential is going to involve a lot more work
	> than taking
	> untyped markup to its fullest potential.  It's simply a larger
set of
	> problems.
	> A binary PSVI format could sure make XML-RPC (PSVI-RPC?)
	> messages a lot
	> smaller.  All it takes is a spec, some free parsers, and some
	> Maybe someday programmers will look back on XML as the
bootstrap phase
	> of the PSVI, while the occasional markup geek still pokes
around CDATA
	> sections.
	> --
	> Simon St.Laurent
	> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
	> Errors, errors, all fall down!
	> http://simonstl.com
	> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>,
	> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
	> The list archives are at
	> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
	> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
	The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>,
	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>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS