Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Divorcing Data Model and Syntax: was Re: heritage (was Re: [xm
 Jeni, Jeni Tennison wrote: >Hi Patrick, > >>I don't recall ever calling a JITTs processor an XML processor. It >>is a processor that can use XML markup to impose structure on data. >>It could just as well use both the XML markup as well as Simon's >>fragmentation or even true DATATAG as part of the processing of a >>data set and still be a JITTs processor. It is that freedom that is >>one of the differences from a LMNL processor, which appears to be >>limited to LMNL syntax. (Correct me if I am wrong on that last >>point.) >> > >You're wrong on that last point. A LMNL processor isn't actually >defined anywhere, but I'd say that it was anything that generates a >LMNL data model. There are no restrictions on what the *source* of >that LMNL data model could be -- XML, LMNL, TexMECS, plain text, CVS >files etc. etc. etc. > Let me see if I can get a little closer by changing your words and see if you think I am saying the same thing: A LMNL processor generates the LMNL data model (ranges and annotations) based upon places in the data (however found, imposed or represented) and data associated with those places? I assume that this is some in memory representation or is it output to the "serialization syntax" in the form of a file for further processing? So, correcting my earlier statement, the LMNL view of data is limited to the LMNL data model? (I realize you do not agree that is a limitation or not much of one.) On the other hand, JITTs does not have a data model. It imposes whatever data model (in your sense of the term) without regard to the how the places in the data are represented in a particular "serialization syntax." In other words, I could impose the XML data model on a Postscript file, or vice versa, but either would require careful attention to the requirements of the output "serialization syntax." You can say that JITTs represents a divorce between any given serialization syntax and a particular data model. Yes, I like that. > >The LMNL syntax is there as a *serialisation syntax* so that LMNL data >models can be exchanged easily, because you can't represent >overlapping ranges and structured annotations in XML without reifying, >and reified structures are tedious to write and a whole lot larger >than non-reified ones. > No, the data model of XML does not support these uses. In the JITTs world view, that has no relevance to what data model and what occurrences of a serialization syntax are selected (or used in data) to match a particular data model. If I want to output XML, I best use the XML data model to guide the selection and/or processing of whatever occurrences that need to be output in a serialization syntax to conform to that data model. <snip> >>Ah, but the proper acronym is JITTs (note the little "s" on the >>end). ;-) With that correction, obviously much cooler than LMNL! ;-) >>(Although I must confess a weakness for the LMNL hat. Think we may >>have found something for JITTs (the proper acronym) but checking on >>permissions before posting.) >> > >The hat is *the* coolest thing about LMNL, in my opinion (and that's >saying a lot, 'cos LMNL is *very* cool ;). All credit to Wendell Piez >for it. > Wendell is the origin of the hat??? ;-) I knew he was talented in markup, literature and a variety of other subjects but not artistic expression! Cheers for Wendell! Patrick > >Cheers, > >Jeni > >--- >Jeni Tennison >http://www.jenitennison.com/ > -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@e... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
