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

Re: Remembering the original XML vision

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Remembering the original XML vision
• From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= <bill@d...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:46:45 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213121839.03083488@m...> <5.2.0.9.0.20030215082258.03f498d8@n...> <15950.23561.33151.598867@m...> <3E4FCBF8.3010601@d...> <oprkpbg3moezizxn@s...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Mike Champion wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:35:52 +0000, Bill de hÓra <bill@d...> wrote:
> 
>> We have two prescribed layers already:
>>
>> 1: Infoset + W3C Schema + QNames
>> 2: RDF + Model Theory + URIs
>
 > [...]
> The second isn't even prescribed in any meangful sense by the W3CL.

If you trawl through the semweb side of W3C's house, you'll see the 
second broadly defined, for some definition of meaningful. By the 
end of the year the W3C will have signed off on the specs. It is an 
alternative approach. Though perhaps the most interesting (and 
underappreciated) option out there is FIPA's, which seems to sit 
somewhere in the middle of the two.


> at www-tag ... the RESTifarians and the SemWeb people can't even agree 
> on the details of URIs.  

That's straightforward enough. Before we move past that permathread, 
either some existing architectural constraints need loosening or the 
20,000ft view needs to explicitly acknowledge a resolution layer. In 
any case details of URIs are not stopping the higher level semweb 
stuff being worked on (at that level everyone agrees that a URI 
names a something), it's an engineering issue mainly.


> Uhhh ... There are PLENTY of difficulties with XML, as the most casual 
> glance at the archives of this mailing list for the past 6 or whatever 
> years will confirm.

Other than entities, I have very few problems when I stay inside XML 
1.0 and a vanilla parser. It's the extraneous stuff (starting with 
Namespaces) and the odd dissonant API call that tends to bite.


> I must be missing something -- a lot of people whose opinion I respect 
> seem to be drawing the wagons around XML 1.x, warts and all.   Serious 
> question: what's driving this?  Are people who practice XML 1.x now 
> being forced by their customers, partners, tools, etc. to deal with the 
> cruft that we've just complained about in the abstract for the last few 
> years?  

It was never abstract, not in a world where you have consume other 
people's data as well as produce it. Too many people think base 
interoperation starts with object models and type systems instead of 
protocols and syntax.

Bill de hÓra

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• References:
  • Re: New tool for handling XML in Java
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • re: Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
  • Re: Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Anyone wanna speculate about what this means?
• Next by Date: RE: Anyone wanna speculate about what this means?
• Previous by thread: Re: Remembering the original XML vision
• Next by thread: Re: Remembering the original XML vision
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread