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] The triples datamodel -- was Re: [xml-dev] Semantic Web

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 14:49 06/06/2004, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 12:56 PM +0100 6/6/04, Dave Pawson wrote:

>This response demonstrates yet another common fallacy in software design. 
>There are unexamined principles at the foundation of your question which 
>are so deeply ingrained in your thinking that it doesn't occur to you that 
>they need to be examined or justified, but they do.

Sheesh, you read minds too?

>The fallacy here is that a document has some sort of processing 
>expectation, but this is simply not true in the heterogeneous world of the 

Maybe not in your world. It is in mine.

>The document is what it is, and will be processed differently by different 
>actors. I likely do not want to do the same thing with the same document 
>as you do, nor is it necessary that I do so. The demand that we provide 
>and adhere to schemas is often little more than a demand that we process 
>documents in only certain preapproved ways. That is a fundamentally 
>limited perspective.

Business often finds that useful. I don't call that limited.

>You are assuming that the extensions must be processed because they're there.

You're reading my mind again I see.

>  I disagree. If I don't need them, I am free to ignore them. My only 
> concern is whether the document contains what I need in order to perform 
> my task. You likely have different requirements for that document than I 
> do. I do not guess how to handle anything. I take what I need, and ignore 
> the rest.

And what form of schema validation do you use to ensure that what you
need is there?

>>>Sometimes the answer, is "I don't know" and the document may need to be 
>>>kicked to a human for further analysis.
>>Which some might equate to 'fall over and die'?
>Absolutely not. The fact is computers aren't that smart, and robust 
>systems allow and prepare for human intervention. In practice, most 
>debugged and deployed systems rarely require human intervention of this sort.

I've not met many such perfect systems.

>>I think the SGML world got it right on this one.
>As proven by the massive success of SGML, and the complete failure of XML. :-)

Bit of a leap there?



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

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