RE: [xml-dev] A Taxonomy of Deviance?

["Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@cisco.com>]

Hi.

I was also asking about this a while back in a slightly more general
way, specifcally, has there been any work done on developing a standard
validation failure (and/or warning) format?

My understanding is that while I'm sure various people have tackled this
problem, it hasn't made it into a public standard yet.

All seriousness aside, this does remind me of a thread that came up on
XML dev about must-understand codes.  Here's a link to the initial post,
and I'm pasting in a compilation of the thread below:

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200504/msg00000.html

<pre>
Display all headersDate: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:21:05 +0100
From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com>
Reply-To: sean.mcgrath@propylon.com
Organization: Propylon
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model
of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System
Can't?)

Whatever about the pros and cons of REST versus SOAP, I think it is
abundantly clear that the mustUnderstand model [1] is a key concept in
developing loosely coupled systems that can evolve independently.
 
I would like to suggest that the mustUnderstand model is sufficiently
important that it should be added to the xml namespace alongside
xml:space and xml:lang.
 
I'm a big fan of conceptualising XML message exchange in terms of
Speech Acts[2]. To make the most of the power of this abstraction, I
think it is necessary to extend the coarse boolean mustUnderstand
model into a more fine grained model that matches the way speech acts
are used in the real world.
 
I would like to suggest that xml:mustUnderstand be an enumeration with
a number of positive integer values, the semantics of which, should be
part of the specification. I can think of five.
 
Additions/comments on these welcome:
 
 
xml:mustUnderstand="0" - It is permissable for the recipient to not
understand the message fragment. No specific directions about the
speech act semantics in this case.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="1" - The message fragment must be understood,
otherwise the conversation must fail.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="2" - reciever must claim to understand, even if it
does not. The sender should have not be able to tell whether or not
the receiver really understands or is simply claiming to
understand. This is particularly useful in the service industries.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="3" - receiver may at first issue one or more
failure responses indicating that it does not understand the message
fragment. Then, without any action from the sender other than retries,
the receiver begins to understand the message fragment. This has many
applications in the political arena.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="4" - reciever may claim to understand the message
fragment one or more times and then begin issuing failure
responses. The failure responses should indicate that the message was
never understood and assert that the receivers behavior has been
consistent in this regard all along. This has many applications in the
media and in academia.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="5" - reciever may claim not to understand but,
unknown to the sender, may act upon the message fragment. This has
many applications in e-commerce.
 
 
Thoughts?
 
Sean
seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
 
[1]
http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/07/27/dare%20versioning%20extensi
bility%20article%20comparison
 
[2]
http://www.manageability.org/blog/stuff/the-restfulness-of-speech-acts/v
iew
 
 
--------------------

Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:54:44 +0100
From: Peter Rodgers <pjr@1060.org>
To: sean.mcgrath@propylon.com
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand
model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST
System Can't?)

You forgot:
 
xml:mustUnderstand="6" - reciever must understand each and every meaning
of the message both explicit and by inference from 
supporting metadata for example, the timestamp of the message.
 
 
-------------------------

From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
To: "'Peter Rodgers'" <pjr@1060.org>, <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:11:18 +0100
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand
model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST
System Can't?)

Not to mention
 
xml:mustUnderstand="7": receiver may misunderstand. This is also very
common
in eCommerce.
 
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

---------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:31:30 -0500
From: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@gmail.com>
To: sean.mcgrath@propylon.com
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand
model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST
System Can't?)

Excellent, an enumeration is the right way to go with this. The
advantage
is that you can then dip into negative numbers:
 
xml:mustUnderstand="-1" - The recipient MUST NOT understand 
the message fragment. 
 
xml:mustUnderstand="-2" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret
the message fragment. 
 
xml:mustUnderstand="-3" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret
part of the message while generating error messages that include
ad hominem attacks on the author of the message fragment.
 
xml:mustUnderstand="-5" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret
part of the message in a libelous manner while claiming to have 
invented the format and claiming you are using it wrong.
 
   -joe
 
-----------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:41:34 -0500
From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@gmail.com>
To: xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand
model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST
System Can't?)


 
xml:mustUnderstand="sqrt(-1)" - The recipient is free to imagine that
it understands the message fragment.



.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:
||:.

Nathan Young
Cisco.com->Interface Development
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@cisco.com  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@expway.fr] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:37 AM
> To: XML Developers List
> Subject: [xml-dev] A Taxonomy of Deviance?
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> there have been discussions previously here and elsewhere about such  
> notions as "feasibly valid". I'm working on a discussion of the ways  
> in which processors that know an XML grammar (be it XML Schema,  
> RelaxNG, etc. it doesn't matter) and use it for a specific task can  
> be resilient to errors in various manners and to various degrees.
> 
> I'm finding it difficult however to come up with a way of measuring  
> their resilience, and was wondering if anyone had come up with a  
> classification for grammar deviations and a metric for just how  
> deviant an instance (or subtree) is. Any thoughts or 
> suggestions there?
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon
>     Senior Research Scientist
>     Expway, http://expway.com/
>