Re: [xml-dev] RE: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the w

["Andrew S. Townley" <ast@atownley.org>]

Brilliantly stated, Bill! :)

On 30 Apr 2014, at 6:31 PM, William Velasquez wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> 
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

--
Andrew S. Townley <ast@atownley.org>
http://atownley.org