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

Re: RE: XML is Like a Box of Chocolates

  • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
  • To: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:21:44 -0500

Re:  RE: XML is Like a Box of Chocolates
David,

Good point, though I think her point concerned messaging formats :-) . Other than steganography, images aren't generally used for messaging (beyond perhaps the obvious). 

Kurt Cagle
Invited Expert, XForms Working Group, W3C
Managing Editor, XMLToday.org




On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM, David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
So you've tossed plain text and multimedia (audio, video etc) as useful?


Sent from my iPad (excuse the terseness) 
David A Lee


On Mar 5, 2012, at 7:59 PM, "Kurt Cagle" <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruce,

I like Jenni Tennisons notion that we are moving to an infrastructure in which all data moves over one of four formats: html (rich text), xml (documents), json (data structures) and rdf (assertions), with the caveat that rdf's preferred format is turtle notation. It's an intriguing thought.

Kurt Cagle

On Mar 5, 2012 5:52 PM, "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@uspto.gov> wrote:
Roger L. Costello, your tombstone will be labeled "The Great Provocateur" and carved in the shape of a Valrhona Truffle.  How dare you refer to the contents of a box of chocolate as "meaningless!"

Of course, the organization and processing of content is HIGHLY MEANINGFUL, even if only to the businesses that invest in its XML representation.  Do you suppose that the idea of organization is somehow a fiction used to seduce those with money to give it to those who play with pointy brackets?  Granted, I've seen similar tactics used to milk DARPA funding, but we aren't all so mercenary.

Kidding aside (yes, that was actually intended to be a joke, so please don't anyone take it seriously), I think you've swung the pendulum too far to the abstract with this analogy, Roger.  If there is meaning in XML, it's in the content, not the syntax.  But if there is a right way to process the content, that process is guided by the markup.  The markup lubricates that special part of the business process that can be reduced to symbol processing.  If there is one paramount constraint on that processing, it is that it must not violate the meaning invested in the content by the content owners.  Believe me, that's a trick worth performing, and paying for.

However, I think your analogy is worth developing.  It will certainly hold the attention of your readers.  And consider a role for wrapping paper.

Somewhat off topic: Which brings to mind a program on Science channel (How it's Done?  Mega factories?) that showed a major UPS sorting center.  Bar codes were used for most packages to move them from the flight they arrived on to the loading dock of the flight or truck they were leaving on.  But not all.  Very large or small packages got sorted using other methods, usually requiring manual intervention to a greater or lesser degree.  XML, like bar codes, will cover a wide range of processing, but not all cases.

Bruce B Cox
OCIO/AED/Software Architecture and Engineering Division
571-272-9004


-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
Sent: 2012 March 4, Sunday 09:06
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: XML is Like a Box of Chocolates

Hi Folks,

XML is like a box of chocolates.

Here's how:

--------------------------------------------------
Organize the Chocolates that I Received
--------------------------------------------------

Recently I received some chocolates:

-  Truffles, I put them in a box and wrote on the outside of the box "Spherical"
-  M&Ms, I put them in another box and wrote on the outside of that box, "Shiny"
-  Chocolate covered peanuts, I received a lot so I divided them into two boxes and wrote on the outside of each box, "Nutty"

I stacked the boxes like so: Spherical on top of Shiny on top of the two Nutty.

Then I took this stack and put them all inside a box and wrote on the outside of that box, "Chocolates"

Oh, I also received a chocolate bar which I hooked on top of the "Chocolates" box.

See how I organized the chocolates?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the Meaning of that Organization of Chocolates?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I hooked the chocolate bar on top of the "Chocolates" box. Is there some special significance to that?

I placed the two "Nutty" boxes on the bottom of the stack. Is there some special significance to that?

What's the meaning of this organization?

Obviously it has no meaning. It is simply the way I organized my chocolates. To attach meaning to this organization is assigning meaning where none exists.

XML is like this organization of chocolates. An XML document is just a collection of data where each item of data has been boxed (enclosed in start-tag, end-tag pairs) or hooked onto a box (attribute). There is no meaning to the organization.

----------------------------
Eating the Chocolates
----------------------------

Today I ate a truffle. When I eat a truffle I like to take my time and enjoy it, so I bite off just a tiny piece, let it sit in my mouth until it melts, and then swallow it; then repeat with the next tiny bite.

My brother, on the other hand, pops the entire truffle into his mouth, chews on it for a few seconds, and swallows it.

--------------------------------------------------
What's the Right Way to Eat Chocolates?
--------------------------------------------------

I eat chocolates in a different way than my brother. Am I right and he's wrong?

Obviously not. We are each entitled to eat chocolates however we desire.

I should mention that I eat brussel sprouts differently than I eat chocolates. For brussel sprouts I pop one into my mouth, quickly chew, and swallow. So if I were doing a blind taste test of various foods, it would be hard for me to know how to eat each food.

I need to know "what" I am eating to know "how" to eat it.

Analogously, there is no right way to process XML.  To each his own. What is important, however, is to know "what" the data is.

-------------------------------
Giving Gifts of Chocolate
-------------------------------

I think chocolates are a great gift. So last Christmas I gave a box of chocolates to each of my siblings.

Earlier I described an organization of chocolates. I used that as a template. For each sibling I made a box of chocolates following that template. That is, to be placed within each "Chocolates" box are:

-  1 box containing truffles
-  1 box containing M&Ms
-  2 boxes containing chocolate covered peanuts.

And hooked onto the "Chocolates" box is a chocolate bar.

------------------------------------------------
What's the Meaning of this Template?
------------------------------------------------

Does the template give meaning to the gift boxes?

Obviously not. The template simply shows "how to" organize the boxes (or, once accomplished, how each box is organized).

Likewise, XML Schema (and Relax NG and DTD) just show "how to" organize data in XML documents. Schemas have no meaning.

---------
Recap
---------

An XML document is just an organization of data. Organization has no meaning. Be careful that you don't implicitly assign meaning where none exists. For example, XML attributes are not "meta-data" and they have no "scope". Analogously, it would be foolhardy to claim that because the chocolate bar is hooked onto the "Chocolates" box it is somehow "meta-chocolate" and it "scopes" all the chocolates inside the box.

XML documents can be processed any way you want. There is no right way. Don't prescribe "how" to process data. However, do describe "what" the data is. But don't depend on the element or attribute names to describe "what" the data is. I labeled the box containing the M&Ms "Shiny", that hardly tells "what" is inside the box. Describe "what" the data is using a data specification and possibly an ontology.

XML Schema (and Relax NG and DTD) are just templates that describe how to organize XML documents. Schemas have no meaning.

-------------------------
Related Discussions
-------------------------

The Edge of Chaos: Where Syntax Ends and Interpretation Begins (http://www.xfront.com/The-edge-of-chaos-where-syntax-ends-and-interpretation-begins.pdf)

The XML Literalist (http://www.stylusstudio.com/xmldev/201103/post90060.html)

Comments?

/Roger



[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!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.