The way Rick sees it makes alot of sense to me (but I would find room for RDF in the picture), whereas I find some of the other comments bemusing. 

Why isn't there much of a corresponding debate between XML and RDF (or JSON and RDF)?

Well XML vs JSON is an issue is because the JSON community see their ecosystem as replacing rather than co-existing alongside other ecosystems (XML in particular). The attitude is JSON and it's ecosystem is all you need. The ability to deploy XSLT/XQuery 3.0 (or JSONiq for that matter) is largely irrelevant, because your chances of being able to deploy any of them in a JSON shop are slim to zero.

Given that, being neutral wrt the two formats would imply being perfectly comfortable discarding  XML (ecosystem and all) and switching to a typical JSON ecosystem. If I were not comfortable advocating such then I wouldn't be expressing neutrality.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...> wrote:

 Here is kinda how I see it. How do others see it?

               |          Fields       |    Literature
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ephemeral      | i.e. messages: JSON   |     HTML  
--------------------------------------------------------------

Stored         | i.e. records: XML+XSD |     XML  

Rick

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote:

Simon St. Laurent wrote:

 

Ø  I think that none of the data-centric cases

Ø  where this conversation tends to take place

Ø  are even appropriate use cases for XML at

Ø  this point.

 

That is a fascinating statement Simon!

 

Would you elaborate please? I’d like to understand more fully what you mean.

 

Isn’t XML necessarily about data, i.e., data-focused, data-centric?

 

What are the appropriate use cases for XML at this point in history?

 

/Roger