RE: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the wild and then c

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

Ok:

1.  IADS.  The elements mapped to the frame roots and then to the style
sheet.  Basically a single layer map with system-built structures that
determined the root and divs and let the styler do the rest as the id
structure was baked in:  a system specific application.  Reuse by mapping
the content specific names be they para or brinyFish.   IOW, best to speak
the local dialects and use the local names.  Implementation in need of
language.  

Has Objects.  Wants data.

2. Book Metaphor:  use abstract structures of input output process boxes.
Language in need of implementation.  A property set looking for people to
pick the names of named names.

Transcription of exiting process models.  Needs nothing.  Does nothing.

3.  MID 1 - abstract Microsoft GUI properties into a frame like format. Tag
the layer types as classes of widgets that have the most common property set
of the samples.  A layer in need of a server.  OTW, an intermediate target
for HTML transform.  Like XUL and XAML that follow, it is an idea that has
merit in terms of things that need to be declared, but deficit in that this
battle was won by HTML and none that have followed better the notion of
basic gentagging:  language of implementation(s).  

Has Classes.  Want objects.

4.  HumanML: research common discussions of human personality as shaped by
events in a system that has both memory and correlative feedback given a
core character set that is chosen by history and location.   A loosely
coupled property farm in need of filters and hookups.  Objects with Pins.

Tags is classes.  Needs objects.  Wants events.

6.  Ad hoc: when I need an easy transform target.

Bento boxes with sizes and named cargo.  Has Data.  Wants data.

In short, system at hand determines means and methods of analysis, and if
not implementation, then the question posed that initiates the research will
shape what is to be marked.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org] 
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 4:40 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the wild and then
create models (XML grammars)?

Hi Folks,

A physicist observes nature and then creates a model of what he observed.
The model often takes the form of a mathematical equation.

A linguist observes usage of a language and then creates a model of what he
observed. The model often takes the form of a context-free grammar. This is
nicely expressed by the following passage from a wonderful book that I am
reading:
   
	If we ignore enough detail we can 
	recognize an underlying context-free 
	structure in the sentences of a natural
 	language, for example, English:

	Sentence --> Subject Verb Object
	Subject --> NounPhrase
	Object --> NounPhrase
	...

So the physicist and the linguist behave in much the same way: they observe
nature and then model its laws/structure.

Here's another relevant passage from the book that I am reading:

	Scenario: you observe a pattern in the 
	strings that you are dealing with. So you 
	create a grammar to describe the pattern.

Do you do this? Do you follow the same mode of behavior as the physicist and
the linguist when creating XML: do you observe streams and collections of
data in the wild, determine the data's inherent structure, and then create a
model (grammar) to reflect the structure? How do you ensure that the XML you
create reflects the structure of the data? How do you determine the
structure of data? Would you share a story of how you observed, determined
structure, and then created a model (XML grammar)  of the data?


/Roger