[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Groves, the next big thing (Re: ANN: XML and Databases article)
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...> To: <xml-dev@i...> Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 2:39 AM Subject: Re: Groves, the next big thing (Re: ANN: XML and Databases article) > > Most importantly, someone is going to have to write a *clear* statement of > > the paradigm, its power, why it's "the next big thing, etc. > > You're asking the impossible. Pretend I am a skeptical mid-1980s dbase > user. Now write the one-page description of the relational model that > will convince me that the model is better than DBase and other > proprietary, ad hoc models. [snip] > I am still discovering the Zen of OO and the Zen of > relational myself so how could I brain-dump the Zen of groves (which I > am also still discovering)? OK, fine ... my point is that if it is so difficult to beome enlightened about the Zen of groves, it's not likely to become "the next big thing" or "the next Linux". > > I can give you some hints though: > > 1. addressing is the basis of everything. For the most part, the DOM > could be replaced with an API of one method: "EvaluateQuery()". This is what I've suspected all along. The DOM is an attempt to develop a pragmatic solution to a number of real problems faced by ordinary people building Websites, writing XML-aware applications, etc. It's got numerous flaws, and those of us with it on our consciences are painfully aware of them. (My personal "favorite" flaw is exactly the one Paul Prescod mentioned, i.e. the rather clumsy way in which one must address individual characters and its incompatibility with XPath, XSL, etc.; I rant about this to the point that I'm sure my colleagues find rather tiresome). In retrospect it is clear to me that the DOM would be a better API if it were built on a more explicit and formalized notion of what the underlying data model is and how one addresses individual sub-components (down to the character level) in that data model. But the Internet economy was not about to wait for the best possible XML API, so we had to get out one that is good enough. Groves, on the other hand, is an extremely general framework, somebody in this thread called it a "Grand Unified Theory of Information". It would appear that the groves paradigm is general enough to encompass just about any XML or non-XML data model -- including the DOM's implicit data model, the Info Set data model, RDF (?), etc But this very generality puts it at a level of abstraction that is simply not appreciated by most people trying simply to get their jobs done. I'm VERY sure that had the DOM working group somehow proposed an API that consisted simply of an EvaluateQuery() method it would have been soundly rejected by the W3C membership or failing that, gotten absolutely nowhere in the marketplace of ideas. It simply would not solve any of problems the DOM is intended to solve, i.e., it doesn't make it any easier to develop an interoperable Web site or XML application, maintaining the maximum possible degree of compatibility with languages, tools, and APIs in widespread use. What we did come up with is, well, what you call "ad hoc" and I call "pragmatic": not pretty, flawed in many ways, but highly serviceable and widely adopted. Sooner or later, maybe after we've all retired to live off the rich rewards due us as XML pioneers ;~) somebody will come along and re-define the chaos we now call the DOM, XML, XSL, XPath, XQL/XML-QL, RDF, etc. in a clean, consistent way and on top of a firm theoretical foundation -- let's call this "X-Nirvana". At the very bottom, that theoretical foundation will probably look an awful lot like the Zen of Groves. Some people on this list seem to believe that a more widespread appreciation of the Zen of Groves will shorten the path to X-Nirvana. I personally doubt it. To pick up Don Park's analogy elsewhere in this thread, what would 18th or 19th century chemists done had they the knowledge that ultimately atomic theory could be formulated in terms of quarks? Would that have speeded up the process of figuring out the periodic table, discovering the chemical composition of familiar materials, or leveraging this knowledge to economically produce new materials? I doubt it -- quark theory is just at the wrong level of abstraction to be useful for solving the practical problems of that age... and I'm far from convinced that the grove paradigm does much TODAY to solve the problems we face in our day jobs. Maybe after a lot more "ad hoc" exploration of how to solve real problems, but not anytime soon. Mike Champion xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|