Re: XML as salvage yard (was RE: James Clark: XML versusthe We
I'm not sure about that. What I find significant here is that for the first time there is a new meme here that I haven't heard really discussed much before:
Is it time to create a new stack?
Nobody is arguing for a new extension of XML, an XML 2.0. Been there, done that, got the tschotskes. Nobody is defending XML as being superior to JSON, only that they accomplish different needs, and that we need to decide whether or not its worth breaking new ground. I'd argue the same issues are occurring in the Semantic Web world, where XML/RDF has been increasingly relegated to an unwieldy alternative format.
In a way its a lot like the unification of forces in physics - you can't realize that electricity and magnetism are manifestations of the same force until you have several years of empirical data and a large enough base, you can't realize that electro-magnetism and the weak force are themselves unified at higher levels and that the weak force and the strong force are simply different symmetry breakings of a unified model. We're facing that now with data structures, and the realization that JSON and XML are different manifestations of a larger need to provide a compelling unification, and that the form of either by themselves are not as important as the fact that at some stage we can recognize that there is a need to see both as part of a more comprehensive data modeling model. This is one of the reasons I think the NoSQL movement is now gaining steam.
The issue, as you put it, is what to do about it. SGML really isn't the answer - it solved certain early document needs, but was ill-suited as a format for data modeling. XML proved that you could strip out a great deal of SGML and actually end up with a more flexible, functional language. The drivers for unification are there; we're seeing more and more bridges between formats, which to me usually precedes a realization that we've reached a higher level of abstraction and are trying to patch it together with lower level tools - eventually you have to embrace that abstraction and find a way to more properly express it to get combinatorial explosions under control.
Perhaps Unification should be the focus of an IWC conference, or Balisage or one of the other markup symposia. Don't call it XML, call it something like DON - Document Object Notation. Throw out all initial assumptions about specific object notations and focus on infosets and modeling mechanisms for infosets. Recognize that each of the three domains - JSON, XML, RDF - are all valid in their need to accomplish specific tasks, but question whether there is some underlying consistent system that can encapsulate all this information easily and readily. Keep the working group small and focused, and put the thought leaders for each camp as at least some of the representatives. It may be that there is no benefit to such unification, that we're better with three standards rather than one, but its worth making the effort to at least try to find common ground.
Lockheed / US National Archives ERA Project
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Dimitre Novatchev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I am watching this and other threads with sadness.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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