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

RE: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-e xpress

• To: "'bill.dehora@p...'" <bill.dehora@p...>
• Subject: RE: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-e xpressions vs. XML)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:05:20 -0600
• Cc: 'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...

Sure enough, and Sowa acknowledges that syntax is a good place to 
start but not the whole solution given a problem where 
model comparison is the goal.  
 
XML marketing stretched the truth and confused 
those two issues.  We bent the twig; it has grown 
a similarly bent tree (the Brothers Grimm version 
of sensitivity to initial conditions).

Data is portable.  Code interoperates.  Some people don't 
get the difference between XML and XML applications.  It 
causes a lot of grief and is at the root of at least 80% of 
the threads here.  XML can't be more and still be ubiquitous.

"Summary:  XML only gives you syntax.  For semantics, you need logic
and ontology as the semantic foundation for all the concepts you may
want to express.  For understanding, implementation, comparison, and
interoperability, syntax is a useful start.  But without semantics,
a common syntax is worse than useless:  it gives people the false
impression that they understand one another merely because they are
using the same character strings."  John Sowa

o  Compare XML and XML.  Sure.  You know if two diferent application 
documents are well-formed.

o  Compare XML application document to XML application document.
Sure.  You know if two documents are valid with respect to the 
same set of declarations.

o  Compare XML application to XML application.  Oops.  XML 
doesn't care.  You have to so you need something Beyond XML 
such as KIF, UML, etc.

len

From: Bill de hOra [mailto:bill.dehora@p...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 
> Sowa claims the essence of XML is syntax:
> 
> "The reason why logic is
> better than XML is that logic has semantics.  XML by itself only
> gives you syntax."

Which for a syntactic form is exactly what you want. You don't want 
syntax+some-rules-for-my-really-important-problem. Not baked in 
anyway. Replace 'logic' with 'a program' in Sowa's claim, and see 
how it reads then.

• Prev by Date: Re: XML is not extensible
• Next by Date: Re: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-e xpressions vs. XML)
• Previous by thread: RE: [XML-dev] Instrument DTD
• Next by thread: RE: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-e xpressions vs. XML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread