Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Re: Two Perspectives (was Re: URIs are simply na
 Like most dyadic decompositions of our field, this one is simple, elegant and highly dubious. I am particularly troubled by the non-sequiter that those with an information-in-motion perspective have "little reverence for the value of the information". I'm a fully paid up information-in-motion, everything flows, kinda guy. Yet, I am deeply concerned about the value and longevity of information. I'm also far from being alone. Here is another dyadic decomposition for you:- There are two types of markup technologist in the world. Those who think there are two forms of markup technologist, and those who don't. :-) Sean >On 2002-02-15 21:12, "ext Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...> wrote: > > It all depends on which documents you regard as > > relevant. In SGML, for example, an "entity" is a very > > different thing. And so is a "resource". > > > > It is very useful and revealing to see the whole > > history of our field as a conflict between two > > perspectives: > > > > (1) The perspective of those who provide bandwidth > > and processing, and > > > > (2) the perspective of those who provide and maintain > > information. > > > > From Perspective 2, which is the perspective on which > > SGML is based, it is nonsensical to define what > > information is (or to think of information in terms of) > > what a process produces, or in terms of a > > communications protocol. For Perspective 2, > > information just sits somewhere, occupying real space. > > Its "location" can be addressed in countless ways, in > > terms of other information -- other information that > > also "just sits there". For Perspective 2, information > > really, really exists, it has real value (in that > > access to it can improve human productivity), its > > maintenance absorbs real human effort, and it does > > absolutely nothing. > > > > From Perspective 1, which is the perspective on which > > the Web and all other communications and computing > > systems are based, it is nonsensical to think of > > information in any terms than other "information in > > motion", either being copied from one place to another, > > or being transformed in various ways. Perspective 1 > > has little reverence for the value of the information > > itself, or for the effort involved in maintaining it. > > Perspective 1 frequently (and, to my way of thinking, > > ignorantly and self-defeatingly) tramples on, > > diminishes, and destroys the value of information in > > many ways. But the Perspective 1 guys have nearly all > > of the money and virtually all of the power. This is > > because Perspective 1 is in a much stronger position to > > set up the toll booths and collect tolls. > > > > Perspective 1 is so unconcerned with the value of > > information that it doesn't bother to distinguish > > between the Eiffel Tower and addressable information > > that serves as a surrogate for the Eiffel Tower; > > they're both just a "resource". Perspective 1 is so > > blithely unconcerned with the problem of information > > management that there doesn't even have to be anything > > at the addresses that are used to uniquely identify > > individual XML Namespaces. > > > > The predominance of Perspective 1 is the reason why the > > Web is such an appallingly bad place to *manage* > > information, even while it's a great place to *publish* > > it. > > > > Of course, the two perspectives need each other > > desperately. It has been my hope that the XML > > phenomenon would be a bridge-builder between them. The > > jury's still out on that. For the last few years, > > things haven't been looking very promising. > > > > Things began badly for Perspective 2, when the > > Perspective 1 people overlooked the primary benefit of > > SGML, and decided to make it unnecessary to provide a > > model for XML information. Except for the enablement > > of some tricky hacks that were made possible by this > > end-run -- hacks whose goals could have been > > accomplished by other, less destructive means -- this > > was a fruitless thing to have done. It has had the > > unfortunate side-effect of keeping millions of people > > from discovering the vital importance of Perspective 2. > > XML Namespaces was another major blow to Perspective 2: > > names were seen as a solution to a communications > > problem, rather than as handles for specific semantics. > > (The two sides have consistently talked right past each > > other on XML Namespaces; the spectacle would be comical > > if it weren't so incredibly expensive for everyone.) > > > > I see the confusing welter of confused, non-modular XML > > specifications as a hopeful sign. The Babel effect is > > slowing the pendulum down, and it may soon reverse its > > course, and move toward Perspective 2. I hope it does. > > If enhancing human productivity is truly the shared > > goal, balance must someday prevail. At the moment, > > most people are on one side or the other, but few > > realize that there is even a dialectic tension here, > > much less what the lack of balance between the two > > perspectives is costing everyone on this planet. When > > we all appreciate the value of the other side's > > perspective, things will improve a lot. > > > > It looks to me as though the W3C, having sinned > > grievously against Perspective 2, is now starting to > > move toward it. I nourish the hope that this is the > > real meaning of the "Semantic Web" initiative. If so, > > it's going to be a tough and divisive path for the W3C > > to follow, and I wish them well. I find many of their > > efforts to describe the goals of the Semantic Web as > > Delphic as others do. It would be a lot clearer if > > they could be seen to embrace Perspective 2, but it may > > not be possible to do that, in view of the overwhelming > > quantity of their Perspective 1 baggage. > > > > OASIS has long been much more sensitive to Perspective > > 2 than the W3C has. I applaud them for their longtime > > efforts to achieve a better balance. > > > > But I'm willing to support anybody who appreciates the > > importance and necessity of supporting Perspective 2. > > Perspective 2 is the underdog, and *balance* is what is > > needed. > > > > I'm an ISO guy, myself. ISO, the source of SGML, is a > > Perspective 2 stronghold. It's a source of ideas that > > Perspective 1 people have been extremely unwilling to > > support, like HyTime, architectural forms, and groves, > > and things that tend to make Perspective 1 people > > pretty nervous, like Topic Maps. > > > > What will .NET turn out to be? I'm no insider, but I'm > > willing to bet that Microsoft is preparing to be where > > the pendulum is going to be -- which is a lot closer to > > Perspective 2 than it is now. > > > > -- Steve > > > > Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant > > srn@c... > > > > voice: +1 972 359 8160 > > fax: +1 972 359 0270 > > > > 1527 Northaven Drive > > Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA > > > > > >-- > >Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 >Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 >Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@n... > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> http://www.propylon.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
