[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
OK, learning from Vladimir's example how about this stack?
1. People
2. private ideas
3. private tools
4. shared ideas
5. shared vocabulary/language
6. shared tools
7. shared processes
8. people
examples of each layer
1. me
2. hungry
3. stick I use to pick my teeth
4. "non-zero sum game"
5. English
6. XML (or the hammer/nail/lumber combination for construction)
7. network computer application (or an assembly line factory)(or a
freeway)
8. mouse wigglers (or widget buyers)
------------->N
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:23:41 -0700, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
<len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> No, that's an acceptable stack, Vladimir.
>
> What say other turtles?
>
> I know some of you prefer a turtleZero, but we
> can punt that away safely until we get to running
> turtles and rough dancing.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Vladimir Gapeyev [mailto:vgapeyev@seas.upenn.edu]
>
> Doesn't the following stack fit the bill?:
>
> Top: 7. Humans
>
> 6. Applications
>
> 5. High-level programming languages
>
> 4. Declarative invariants
>
> 3. Types (i.e., structural constraints)
>
> 2. Abstract syntax [XML Infoset, or other XML data models]
>
> Bottom: 1. Concrete syntax [XML]
>
>
> This is just an XML-specific instance of the stack common to software in
> general. The stack became more refined over the decades: originally all
> semantics was in assembly-coded applications (#6), but gradually the
> layers #2-#5 have separated.
>
> Unfortunately, XML practice doesn't align along this stack cleanly. (I'd
> say, this is too bad for practice ;-) E.g., W3C Schema spreads across
> several layers, tightly glueing them together: it hijacks #2 by putting
> PSVI instead of the Infoset, it's bulk (rightly so) is #3, but it also
> has
> things belonging to #4 (e.g. key/keyref constraints) and even #5 or #6
> (e.g. the mechanism for filling-in default values and the mechanism for
> translating XML into PSVI).
>
> Or you were asking about something totally different? If you have stuff
> like RDF in mind, it is an application that uses XML as just a substrate
> on which it grows. (I.e., RDF has a similar stack, and if we care only
> about XML-based RDF, the interesting part of this stack is inside #5 and
> #6 above.) But RDF, or similar "semantic web" developments, can't be the
> only way to give XML semantics! (Sorry if the RDF guess was wrong)
>
> VG
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
--
.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
Nathan Young
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@cisco.com
|
