[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I was talking about stacks that are themselves
XML-based applications.
On the other hand, where do the semantics come from?
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/050822crat_atlarge
(Thanks Murray.)
Rick Jeliffe gets it. As usual. Although,
again I ask, what is the impact of substitution
groups on schema design (they introduce choices
as a means to label and limit extensibility
but are they just categories with the ability
to provide category features)?
In fact, it isn't all turtles, but that meme
was presented here and when one starts to
think it through, it becomes less powerful
because the systems do work. Why? We make
them work. We had a very long long discussion
on the TAG list about the http range issue.
Eventually it was settled as the clear thinkers
knew it would be: a system is defined in terms
of itself. Appeals to universality as almost
useless.
That is why the question is asked, "Are
you a turtle?" Mike likes the scientist
story, but i use the NASA/flight test story.
When you compare these two, there is a
meaning because this is how 'clear, clean
thinking' engineers work versus the campy
philosophies taking root in the WWW as a
side effect of architectural principles
appealed to justify flawed history and
analysis. It is political superstition but
given there are no tests to overturn it,
it will be remembered and repeated until it
becomes a turtle truism. Truisms work until
they fail.
XML doesn't have names as types. We use
XML generic identifiers to name types.
It IS about communication, not rules.
Math and logic as systems are NOT more
real than the turtles, but they are
reliable and replicable; but we have to
tie them to XML, so is there a best way
to go about doing that? Maybe not, or
maybe we teach turtle truisms that are
ok until exceptional conditions emerge
(No, the levees will hold and the Dome
can withstand a Cat 5.)
As the article above points out, is
it really truth one is after here or systems
that demonstrably work? True or not, what
patterns of XML application language construction
emerge that we can share and rely on?
Using Names for Types: reliable, replicable,
a turtle truism that holds?
len
From: Vladimir Gapeyev [mailto:vgapeyev@seas.upenn.edu]
Hm, I am starting to understand something: you appear to be talking about
stacks of turles that do {thinking about, specifing (and reading other's
specs), setting goals, designing, implementing, using} OF applications /
systems, XML-based or not. And I thought the talk was about stacks of
turtles that ARE themselves XML-based applications / systems!
Can one even hope to conceptualize any useful stacks of the first kind?
That's just a mess of communicating individuals. Only math and software
coming out of this mess are real. [Wow, I'll call this platonism of the
3rd millenium!]
|
