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

Re: xml taxonomy

• To: <Laurent.SABARTHEZ@c...>,<clbullar@i...>,<rjm@z...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: xml taxonomy
• From: "Winchel \"Todd\" Vincent III" <winchel@m...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:31:16 -0400
• Cc: <Neil.Payne@j...>,<Karen.Cannata@j...>,<TJSmith@I...>,<gpoindexter@b...>,<XMLWG@l...>
• References: <B3C48C4D16D3D711ADAC0003470D631F092AAD@ex2beimcombx03>

Laurent:

> <snip>
> Disclaimer: The following is my own terminology that helps me sort out the
> world.  I'm not trying to impose it on anyone, just sharing it for what
its
> worth.
> </snip>
>
> It's nice to know about your own terminology. However, in order to be
> useful, a terminology should be widely shared by a community. I'm really
not
> sure this is the case for yours. Anyhow, my own terminology is quite
> different. See below for a few comments.
>
> <snip>
> By "atomic" or "electronic" document [...]
> </snip>
> <comment>
> The usual meaning for "atomic" applies to things, entities, objects,
> properties or whatever that you cannot, or do not want to, break into
> pieces. Anything to do with "electronic"? This reminds me: There are two
> kinds of cars: Japan-made cars (my brother-in-law got tons of engine
> problems with a Toyota), and cars parked down Canyon Street (that's where
my
> sweetheart's living) that are not red (I hate that guy's red car).
> </comment>

Allow me to be more precise.

I am *not* trying to say:

atomic = electronic

I am trying to say:

atomic document = electronic document

things | entities | objects (that you cannot or do not want to break into
peices) = x

x = atomic document

x = electronic document

Further, if

xml document + stylesheet = y

and

y = one electronic file

then

y = atomic document

and

y = electronic document

But, if

a = electronic file[1] (an xml document)

and

b = electronic file[2] (a stylesheet)

then (by my definition)

a + b != atomic document

a + b != electronic document

Also, in my view:

electronic document = MS Word | PDF | Word Perfect

atomic document = MS Word | PDF | Word Perfect


>
> <snip>
> Generally, a "message" is a machine-to-machine data transfer (e.g., from
one
> database to another database).
> </snip>
> <comment>
> A message is not the same thing as a transfer. If only for one reason,
it's
> because messages are just the stuff that's transferred. Incidentally,
> databases do not transfer anything. DBMSs do.
> </comment>


Yes, I agree, a message is not a transfer.  A message is the thing | object
| xml document that is transfered.  Often, messages are exchanged based on a
protocol.  See below.


> <snip>
> A "protocol" is a series of messages that follow one of many
> request/response patterns.
> </snip>
> <comment>
> Protocols are not made of messages. They are rules specifying which
messages
> are well-formed, and which exchanges are allowed.
> </comment>

From dictionary.com . . . Protocol: Computer Science. A standard procedure
for regulating data transmission between computers.

In the context of the email I sent to the list, protocols are made of
messages (xml documents), plus rules that define the order, timing, and
meaning of the how the messages are exchanged.  I think this is consistent
with common understanding.

Hope this helps.

Todd

• References:
  • RE: xml taxonomy
    • From: Laurent.SABARTHEZ@c...

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace declaration and schema validation problems
• Next by Date: RE: Need help on JAXB!
• Previous by thread: RE: xml taxonomy
• Next by thread: RE: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread