[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Inline
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@fiduciary.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:05 PM
> To: XML DEV
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
>
> "Cavnar-Johnson, John" wrote:
>
> > I disagree here. I don't see a fracture between users of validating
> > parsers and non-validating parsers today. What's the basis for your
> > assertion that this will have serious consequences? Nobody's saying
> that
> > the documentation world can't keep there current tools and
> methodologies.
> > I think the theoretical users of the new parsers have little or no
> > interaction with that world anyway. I hate to see this false
dichotomy
> > between doc heads and data heads perpetuated. I'm interested in
systems
> > that integrate business documents (purchase orders, contracts, etc.)
> with
> > relational systems. I consider myself very "document-oriented", but
> DTDs,
> > entities and such don't buy me much of anything and the non-optional
> > nature of the internal subset is extremely frustrating.
>
> In the fifth anniversary celebratory essays there flickers still the
dream
> of data fusion, under which there is in fact no dichotomy of doc heads
and
> data heads. What has changed is the orthodox opinion of what that
fusion
> is
> to be built upon. In the 'remembering the original XML vision' thread
Dare
> Obasanjo succinctly made the case for fusion built upon infosets
which,
> like
> you apparently, he believes is the new orthodox opinion. I do not
question
> that may now be the opinion of the majority.
I didn't say anything about infosets and don't see how they are relevant
to this discussion. Dare seems to be a nice guy and I love working with
the tools his team builds, but I don't see how you can conflate his
opinion with mine.
> However, I build (and have
> for
> quite some time) 'systems that integrate business documents (purchase
> orders, contracts, etc.) with relational systems' and with
transactional
> processors.
As do I. I enjoy doing it with XML more than the technologies I used
previously.
> I can demonstrate with copious evidence that integration based
> upon infosets does not work for the business documents which are in
fact
> found, as documents, in daily use while conversely integration based
upon
> syntax and a bare minimum of syntactic rules, like well-formedness
under
> the
> XML 1.0 Rec, does work spectacularly well for such integration.
I haven't ever tried to base integration upon infosets, so I can't
contribute to that part of your comment, but I heartily agree with your
comments about integrating with documents. I just want to have the
option of integrating systems with documents that conform to a simpler
definition of well-formedness.
>
> It is unfortunately clear that many are not interested in the
empirical
> evidence of how well integration upon syntax works, preferring from
> polemic
> motivations to dismiss its details with no better argument than that
they
> 'don't buy me much of anything'.
I understand the empirical evidence very well. I participate in it
every day. I believe you have completely misread my position.
> Do you understand how thin and petulant
> that argument must sound when what is at stake for me is losing the
> working
> integration which I have already achieved?
How would standardizing a class of processors that don't process the
internal subset, entities, etc. jeopardize what you have achieved? If
there are costs to my proposal that I don't see now, I would like to
hear them, but don't impute to me positions that I do not hold. Your
processor(s) can still handle the documents that these systems would
produce. If you use the features that are eliminated from the subset,
then consumers of your documents would need to use a processor capable
of dealing with them. Is that cost really significant, and if so,
please explain?
> If document creators follow
> your
> prescriptions their documents become increasingly opaque to me and to
the
> methods which now work very well in integrating those documents into
> transactional processing.
How is that? What prescription have I made that increases the opaqueness
of documents?
> When you reach an entirely infoset-based
> integration you will have succeeded in limiting its benefits solely to
the
> cartel who accept your precise premises in toto before ever gaining
useful
> access to your 'documents'. You will have also, not incidentally,
created
> a
> model of 'business document' suitable for your processing which barely
> resembles documents which have natively arisen within businesses and
> remain
> the basis of conveying most information there. That is, instead of
quick,
> easy and working integration of what is now in use on the document
side
> with
> the processing methodology which pervades the data side, you will find
> yourself offering business only the enormous cost of building your
> preferred
> infrastructure before they ever enjoy the integration you offer, which
> will
> be an integration only with others willing to submit to the same
onerous
> conditions.
I am completely unable to comprehend that paragraph. I'm not reaching
for "an entirely infoset-based integration". I'm not aware of any cartel
who accepts my precise premises in toto. In fact, I'm quite sure that I
don't accept the premises you think I do.
|
