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

RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: vdv@d..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:13:36 -0500

Yet editing a book on object programming last night, 
I read three very serious authors insist on the 
impersonality of design, the removal of individual 
interpretation, and the *fact* that if one learns 
objectThink, one realizes that all other desing forms are 
inadequate.

The need of some to reduce all to one method 
is not mystifying.  It is rather blue.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:18 PM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data
model s


"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> The recipient is always the one whose semantic interpretation matters -
> unless, of course, they have a good reason ($$$, friendship,
> convenience) to adopt the semantics of the sender as their own.
> 
This is not only true for XML, when we discuss together on xml-dev or in
"real" life, what makes the discussion interesting and enriching is that
we, as readers, do not apply exactly the same semantic than the writer
of a message.

One of the virtue of the late binding intrinsic to XML is that the same
principle applies to exchanges of documents: the receiver applies its
own semantic and processing.

This is enabling "intelligent" (and unexpected) processings of the
documents that lead to the creation of added value.

Receiver X can process the same document than receiver Y but make a
different usage and get more information or value from this document
than receiver Y.

This is true for XML 1.0, with or without DTD (I have heard, no later
than this morning, Ken Holman affirm that in XML, the semantic is
defined by the processing, not by the model).

While I can see some benefits for some applications to bring the
semantic back into the model, for instance through schema and schema
adjunct languages, I think that would also kill one of the most
fundamental strengths of the XML model.

My 0,02 Euros.

Eric
-- 
See you in Berlin for XML Europe 2001:
     http://gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/tutorialsmon.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
<http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...

• Prev by Date: Re: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data models
• Next by Date: Re: Types and Context
• Previous by thread: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Next by thread: RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread