Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"XML Developers List" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] After XQuery, are we done?
- From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:21:10 -0500
- Thread-index: AcS6rSHyZXalp7n0Ta6DxO8QrdPOZwAAPc5g
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] After XQuery, are we done?
Gavin Thomas Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 11:06 AM, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > <opinion type="myopic mathematical bias">
> > The way I see it, the real question in this thread is how
> do we move
> > from exchanging limited hierarchical models represented in
> XML towards
> > exchanging some more universal graph representations?
> > </opinion>
> A more important question, which gets to the heart of the matter, is
> who decides what is a graph, what is a tree, and by what
> means do they
> make the interpretation?
I don't get the distinction. As soon as you've got a graph you've got a
tree (or perhaps many trees).
> I think this was probably the point Michael
> Kay was making.
> I've seen all kinds of data, including graphs, encoded in
> XML, just as
> I have seen such data structures encoded in ASCII.
Sure, but with an XML representation of a graph you're back to the
application to parse the XML serialization into a graph. You haven't
exchanged a graph, you've exchanged something that, given enough extra
knowledge, someone else might be able to build a graph out of.