[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 08:24:48 -0600

Right.  Which is why there are include and redefine 
statements in XML schemas, yes?  Components of schemas 
instead of monoliths.   Decentralized systems typically 
are more robust than centralized systems.  The success 
of HTML was not in its design but in its effect; it 
opened access to the discourse.  After that, it became 
a bottleneck to development.  No size fits all purposes.

The issues are negotiation and interpretation.  Lots 
of levels here for theorists and practicioners alike.

As to having one schema language be better than lots:  
it is practical to have one language to create languages, 
it is not practical technically or politically to have 
one language.   Again, one system means no ambiguity, 
but ambiguity is real, the system is not. 

Something fun to do:  compare Lenat's and Brooks' 
approaches to AI.  Which one do you think is more 
robust given a position on bottom-up vs top-down? 
If you really want to use XML for conceptual modeling, 
this is a dilemma.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean@d...]

Single models (monolithic) fail in the real world not in the theoretical
world.

In theory, people in a smoke filled room can agree a top-down
model of data interchange. In practice, the cannot. In theory, developers
can manage the state-space explosion inherent in processing
monolithic content models but in practice they cannot.

• Prev by Date: re: Rules & Grammars
• Next by Date: Re: Rules & Grammars
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: RE: Rules & Grammars
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread