Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably havelot
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Costello, Roger L. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Recently I have been learning Lambda Calculus . good man > A fascinating thing about Lambda Calculus is its richness, despite it being extraordinarily simple. and most of what follows I did not follow ... I would start off with what I think seems to be your fundamental assumption e.g. that Lambda Calculus is correct and formal as a direct result of its boundedness and 'smallness'. Whilst Lambda Calculus maybe true and obvious I would not be so bold as to then vary this with something else. I am not going to argue against your fundamental assumption but lets remind ourselves that math has a lot more holes in it ... I find the Sorites paradox a good reminder of just how fragile simple assumptions can be blown away in math, tout de suite. Data and code (and things like XML Schema) are like languages because humans create them, but they are extremely abstract and do a very poor job at nailing the jelly to the ceiling; I don't want to be an XML Schema apologist ... I think the latest version makes it much more usable then before and I am grateful for the work that went into it; I think we all agree something better is possible but I will be damned to know if that will occur in my lifetime (if there is an example in any programming domain of something good, then send it my way). I agree with you that xml vocabularies that are small are probably more successful, just do not agree with you your reasoning. I don't agree that the number of terminals, operators or 'things' in the language can always result in incomprehension or complexity ... think CISC vs RISC, depending on your current want/need you may find a more complex instruction set better. I have far too little experience to authoritatively comment on research topics in schema but just as coding in the language of the domain is a good thing and encoding your data in the language of the domain is a good thing ... it maybe that schema approaches that are generic will always create unwanted complexity ... would be great to hear from gurus their opinion of a successful schema tech over the past 20-30 yrs. as always interesting topic Jim Fuller  Sorites paradox - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
[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