RE: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the wild andthen cr

[cbullard@hiwaay.net]

Not moi.  I am quite mad.  And relieved to be so.

len

Quoting William Velasquez <wvelasquez@visiontecnologica.com>:

> Hi Roger,
>
> I'm not scientific-enough to answer your questions, but I'll share a  
> few reasons why I think XML geeks here effectively are scientist:
>
> - Those who advocates for the status quo tend to contradict us
> - World could be a better place if they believe us
> - Most of our ideas are just too high to be understood by the mere mortals
> - Most of our ideas will be understood only after we die
> - We spent all of our lives studying to be data-scientists
> - Obtaining money is really hard for us, except for those lucky guys  
> that get a contract with the government
>
> Finally:
> - Most people think we are crazy
> - Most of us look like mad scientists
>
>
> Just for fun ;-)
>
> - Bill
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Len Bullard [mailto:cbullard@hiwaay.net]
> Enviado el: domingo, 27 de abril de 2014 5:37 p. m.
> Para: 'Costello, Roger L.'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Asunto: RE: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the  
> wild and then create models (XML grammars)?
>
> 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