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

My opinions on the TAG mail on xml-dev + the note on xml-schema

• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT)

The TAG mail was sent out by Simon, and is archived at
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200105/msg00356.html

Also, there was a note on xml-schemas archived at
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200105/msg00367.html
and the link on that posting with respect to schemas is
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-schrec.html??open&l=136,t=grx,p=xrecom

Also, another interesting posting is
http://logicerror.com/w3c-meeting-2001-2-28

I just wanted to summarize my opinions on the above developments in
general -- this is just intent at voicing the opinion of one user of xml.

One thing I have been thinking about over the last few weeks is about
xml-schemas -- I think probably one mistake made was the recognition of
the organization, more than the recognition for the individual people -- i
think there are a few core people who get a very in-depth feel for a
problem. But people by nature might give entire credit to the organization
out of their humility.  I think (and I apologize for hurting anyone's
sentiments) that xml-schemas when they formed a group did not listen to
various suggestions -- (I started in July, and was *closely* monitoring
the suggestions from Dr. Wadler) when I started -- the Query WG gave a lot
of suggestions for xml-schemas, including -- please do not be in the
middle of regular tree languages and DTDs, that there was not really any
point in being there etc, etc.

Anyways, I think it is *very* difficult for people to use something which
they do not understand, and somewhat difficult to use something which they
do not approve of. I think xml-schemas is something which very few people
understand in full, and it is also something which I think most people do
not approve of -- just my opinion. I will say it is definitely something
which increased our knowledge, but it was mostly in terms of mistakes that
we probably should not repeat. If given a chance, I personally will
encourage anyone who really wants to try to understand xml-schemas, and
their design choices.

I think it will definitely be good if W3C in stead of doing all research
behind closed doors, do request for outside participation/assistance when
needed (i think there are quite some energetic people outside w3c who are
looking for some problem which w3c might not be working on and which they
understand quite well, but they might hesitate because they do not know
how useful their work will be) -- i think the problems become more and
more difficult as we move towards data modeling, querying etc -- though
the members of the Query WG are *remarkable* in their experience.

it is very difficult when there are problems we do not know the solution
to -- i think often the best practice in such a situation is to just do
various things, and hopefully the solution will emerge. in stead of saying
that the discontent with xml-schemas is because of competing
specifications, i would rather say that xml-schemas should learn from
these competing specifications and polish their work as to what people
actually want.

<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>

regards - murali.

• Prev by Date: Re: XML vocabularies for chemical and pharmaceutical industries
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces and other stuff
• Previous by thread: The countdown ---One week till XML Europe 2001..
• Next by thread: Trusting the Semantic Web: Facts and Points of View
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread