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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: [xml-dev] heritage (was Re: [xm

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


Jeni Tennison wrote:

>Hi Patrick,
>>I don't recall ever calling a JITTs processor an XML processor. It
>>is a processor that can use XML markup to impose structure on data.
>>It could just as well use both the XML markup as well as Simon's
>>fragmentation or even true DATATAG as part of the processing of a
>>data set and still be a JITTs processor. It is that freedom that is
>>one of the differences from a LMNL processor, which appears to be
>>limited to LMNL syntax. (Correct me if I am wrong on that last
>You're wrong on that last point. A LMNL processor isn't actually
>defined anywhere, but I'd say that it was anything that generates a
>LMNL data model. There are no restrictions on what the *source* of
>that LMNL data model could be -- XML, LMNL, TexMECS, plain text, CVS
>files etc. etc. etc.
Let me see if I can get a little closer by changing your words and see 
if you think I am saying the same thing:

A LMNL processor generates the LMNL data model (ranges and annotations) 
based upon places in the data (however found, imposed or represented) 
and data associated with those places?

I assume that this is some in memory representation or is it output to 
the "serialization syntax" in the form of a file for further processing?

So, correcting my earlier statement, the LMNL view of data is limited to 
the LMNL data model? (I realize you do not agree that is a limitation or 
not much of one.)

On the other hand, JITTs does not have a data model. It imposes whatever 
data model (in your sense of the term) without regard to the how the 
places in the data are represented in a particular "serialization 
syntax." In other words, I could impose the XML data model on a 
Postscript file, or vice versa, but either would require careful 
attention to the requirements of the output "serialization syntax."

You can say that JITTs represents a divorce between any given 
serialization syntax and a particular data model. Yes, I like that.

>The LMNL syntax is there as a *serialisation syntax* so that LMNL data
>models can be exchanged easily, because you can't represent
>overlapping ranges and structured annotations in XML without reifying,
>and reified structures are tedious to write and a whole lot larger
>than non-reified ones.
No, the data model of XML does not support these uses. In the JITTs 
world view, that has no relevance to what data model and what 
occurrences of a serialization syntax are selected (or used in data) to 
match a particular data model.  If I want to output XML, I best use the 
XML data model to guide the selection and/or processing of whatever 
occurrences that need to be output in a serialization syntax to conform 
to that data model.


>>Ah, but the proper acronym is JITTs (note the little "s" on the
>>end). ;-) With that correction, obviously much cooler than LMNL! ;-)
>>(Although I must confess a weakness for the LMNL hat. Think we may
>>have found something for JITTs (the proper acronym) but checking on
>>permissions before posting.)
>The hat is *the* coolest thing about LMNL, in my opinion (and that's
>saying a lot, 'cos LMNL is *very* cool ;). All credit to Wendell Piez
>for it.
Wendell is the origin of the hat??? ;-) I knew he was talented in 
markup, literature and a variety of other subjects but not artistic 
expression! Cheers for Wendell!


>Jeni Tennison

Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature


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

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