[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 10/14/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> New entrants to the space are one reason for permathreads.
> Then there is the occasional checking of old ideas to see
> if any new merit has obtained. Then there is the joy of
> rehashing: the rules for baseball don't change, but it is
> still fun to play for the exercise.
Yes, I suppose so, but I don't seem to have much time to do any
exercise these days (sigh)...
>
> Well-practiced games and technologies such as XML settle
> into attractor orbits (aka, permathreads). That makes them
> dull news so the artificial luminaries go away. At that
> point, the list resumes its communal and educational nature,
> and while the pretty people are looking elsewhere, something
> magical can happen. I'm trying to figure out what the heck
> monoids are before XML 2005 in Atlanta. Maybe if I can
> understand it here, we can discuss it there. Anyone care
> to tutor on that topic? The wikipedia explanation is
> dense and my math won't cut it.
Oh dear; abstract algebra used to be one of my strongest subjects, but
it's been a while since I've touched any of this.... Given other posts
of yours, I suppose you're trying to figure out what the relationship
to category theory means? I doubt that I can help you, but perhaps
you can explain exactly what you want to know? (I can probably do the
group and ring theory relationships bits if you want them, but I can't
see where you'd go with them.)
> I'm a dull blade but I've a strong handle.
Guess I'm more like a grater: lots of blades, but don't expect me to
cut too deep without a lot of effort... ;-)
>
> On the other hand, I think there is still a lot about applying
> XML that isn't universally understood such as Steve DeRose
> explains in the article Elliotte referenced, that new technologies
> such as the hardware accelerators open up new possibilities,
> and that as long as we keep this list hashing the threads,
> any refactoring that is needed will be well-understood before
> it is undertaken. Remember, comp-text-sgml plowed the field
> for xml-dev by creating the chorus and enabling the luminaries
> to spot the technically talented and the usefully vocal.
You already know my leanings towards graph theory; in as much as XML
get's more people working on good ways to do generalized graph
traversal I'm all for it. However, every time I see someone wanting
to glue an artificial relationship into XML some part of me screams
for the generalization of graphs. OTOH, precomposed containers of
relationships (elements with attributes) do remove lots of the tedium
of explicitly building out every relationship...
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
