Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This is the official announcement of xml schema as a recommendation from TBL from www10, as noted by a friend of mine attending the conference in Hong Kong. the following is purely my personal opinions (from a person *strongly* biased against XML Schema) -- Anyway, I especially note the "group with theoretical objections". From a personal point of view, i think this is not something to be taken lightly or to be brushed aside as just another group. I think, from time immemorial, there always has been a core group of mathematicians behind every technology - I think they are the people who can really analyze a technology and find its pitfalls and benefits, which as users we can safely start using. I think the decisions made by XML Schema ensured that the group of mathematicians it started off with dropped out on the way. In short, i do not think I am too far off when I say XML schemas is technology which mathematicians do *not* approve of. I would like to ask the opinions of mathematicians about how much of a fix they are in with this recommendation. I also take special note of the fact that XML Schemas acknowledges the input from the formal language theory community -- i am very sure it must be for a noble cause, and do not wish to complain about it, but i think formal language theory people will say that XML Schemas defies formal language theory. Anyway, the future *definitely* looks interesting. My two cents worth of thought in this matter is: Rather than taking a forward step, man has taken a negative step with respect to data modeling. <warning>speaking for himself only</warning> regards - murali. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:43:36 -0700 (PDT) I listened to TBL's keynote day before yesterday - the formal "announcement" of the XML schema recommendation happened within the first couple of minutes of his speech. He did concede/acknowledge the presence of a number of detractors to the current recommendation but indicated (paraphrasing) "that it was all part of the game". By the way, there seem to be a couple of different communities that have bones to pick with this recom. One is of course the "group" with theoretical objections. Another is the RDF/semantics/ontologies group (basically people with AI or knowledge-bases background) that believes that even though the current spec might be okay for describing documents, it just doesn't fit the bill for data/information exchange.
|
