Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Semantics was Re: XQuery types ...
 Evan Lenz wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: > > I > > don't mean to be condescending, but it is hard to have a meaningful > > converstation unless we agree on a few principles. > > I don't have a computer science education (working on that now), but what > Dare said about XQuery makes complete sense to me. A number of things were said, and if you want to know my opinion about XUpdate, google "Borden XUpdate" ... I've nothing new to add. On the otherhand, I do agree (I suppose with the XQuery WG) that: the XQuery semantics is a 'good thing', and I suppose that if the XQuery type system were actually based on XML Schema, as Dare suggests, then what would the purpose of the XQuery semantics be? As I've said, I see more in common between RELAXNG and XQuery semantics than XML Schema, but perhaps I'm the only person to think this, so be it. > I hardly think this > requires a discussion of logic and where we got the word "type". You should > consider that terms in computer science do not always correspond directly to > terms in abstract logic. I get the feeling you're not really listening to > what Dare's saying; instead you're trying to cast his use of various terms > into the mold you learned in Logic 101. That seems like a surefire way to > delay meaningful discussion. > Hmm. How about this: 1) XML has largely succeeded as defining an exchange syntax. No longer does the world _need_ to argue over whether to use angle brackets or parens to delimit tokens. Whoopee!! 2) By objective measurements, the Web and the Internet have largely been a failure since roughly 1996 -- this reflected in the now not so recent Stock Market crash. The networks sector has been demolished and the technology sector is largely stagnant. 3) If you look at the _hype_ (not the reality) that surrounded XML in 1998-1999, the promise of shared semantics, improved internet search engines, global catalogs etc, has not materialized. 4) 99% of XML as used today, as a syntactic document exchange mechanism was done with XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces Most everything that has come beyond that has been dancing around the idea of shared _semantics_, yet most people consider this a pipe dream. I am trying to (re)cast this discussion toward something I consider meaningful, and in a more rational direction. 1) We need to use the term "semantics" in a precise fashion, otherwise we will continue to tangentially debate the issues ad infinitum. 2) "Types" and yes I mean "classes" of Logic 101 (I never took that, actually all my knowledge of this comes from more of a comp. sci. background -- so be it.) are necessary for a mathematical (i.e. machine understandable) definition of semantics. 3) Classes understood in this fashion are not esoteric, rather straightforward. In any case, yes, I am trying to nudge this discussion on toward promises that the XML community (perhaps unwittingly) made to the public in 1998, and remain unfulfilled. In any case if "XML" in the general sense is not interested in moving in this direction, it really is _done_ and has accomplished its initial objective (it has succeeded as a document exchange syntax). Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
