Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] PHIL: Why The Web is Mediocre (WAS RE: Re: XML CMM and ISO9000
 When dealing with cultural phenomena, it is best to understand it as an analogical system. When I was writing the paper on Information Ecosystems in 95, I was attempting to get to some of the issues that would confront us and are confronting us now. Using the ecological metaphor may have been a bad choice because it was seized on and spread without much understanding. XML has become 'memish' that way. Nonetheless, as metaphor, it has proven by experience to be a good predictive model. I believe that a primary problem of the web and computer science at this time is that it is becoming more religion than science. Given the information wealth morphing into infoglut, personalities dominate and where that occurs, the personal problems of the sources often become institutional problems. The web is an amplifier, feeds back on itself, and the lie can become the truth at light speed. It takes maturity and experience to sort this out, and the press is often incapable of the depth of analysis required. Blogging isn't a solution unless the bloggers themselves are able to distance themselves from the desire to be the most linked. GIGO still rules. This was a danger some saw coming but few wanted to acknowledge in the rush to deification of web technology. As with television, the result may be that the web will become, is becoming, an untrustworthy source of extreme inbred mediocrity. The web itself, culturally, is quite immature. There is a lack of responsibility, even a cultural imperative to toss away any sense of responsibility and that is very much the opposite of the so-called 'community ethic' the culture pretends to embrace. As a result, yes, some will claim XML to be a much better solution than say relational systems and will fight for that until it is inconvenient. Note I didn't say disproven. I don't think you will find too many experienced XMLers who make that claim at this time and for reasons that have been debated here now and in threads that are some years older. That was what surprised me in this thread. I assumed most here know that XML is not an all embracing solution. The academic proofs (and I don't mean that pejoratively but to point to where the time and resources usually are to pursue these to the level of excellence needed), are useful. The claim 'it can be whatever you want it to be' does not solve the problems of Boltzman entropy and that is the central problem of information sciences. To be meaningful, some choices are more probable than others. Proofs lead to the selectors that enable intelligent choices in a noisy environment. Intelligence does not emerge from the fringes, but from the overlaps. The problem of the web is that its culture still embraces the fringe the way a teen ager does to make his or her parents notice him. That is the dilemma of anonymity and ever since the XMLers took out the parent language and became wildly successful, a return to anonymity is the greatest unspoken fear of the community. See Clockwork Orange. It is very possible to be both practical and deviant and to be rewarded for it. That is the essential problem of desire as the maker and destroyer. This is not philosophical; it is observable. If proof is required, it will be analogical and historical. It will only be testable in specific cases, and then, dangerous to generalize. Nonetheless, with prudent application, it is useful to know. len From: pop3 [mailto:lbradshaw@d...] I have nothing to disagree with in your response. I often work from the practical result back to the theory, to derive useful theorems that I can later apply to other problems. But my experience is that this is not the best way to develop applications for production use in the wild as several round trips may be necessary (as has been seen, and will continue to be seen, I think, in the XML community). I will call, again, for specific proofs people already have, or for requests for very specific proofs, that people need right now, or expect to need in the near term. Perhaps if we take this discussion up to a higher level of academic achievement, it can progress and be fruitful. Personally, I would like to see XML proofs in line with Knuth's work and Codd's. Proofs that justify its existence, and define its scope and usefulness. Something other than what I often hear... "but the XML document can be __anything__ you want it to be !!!!!!" as if that was proof enuf. When I respond that a Word doc (using Microsoft's word document markup language and symbol interpreter) can be anything you want it to be, the XML advocate usually just looks at me in total amazement. Thank you. At 12:32 PM 8/25/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >Yes, once one has a good idea of what needs proving. >Otherwise, like proving that a bumblebee can't fly, >one is modeling from axioms, and the bee just goes >about its business doing what it will. Abduct, induct, >then deduct. > >Markup scales where it needs to first, in the applications >which its inventors had in mind. Note, DTDs were added >later. Formalization was done later. This is historical >even if not necessary. In short, don't wait on proofs >nor ignore them when available. Just be sure of what is >being proved and that it is relevant to the task. > >To the point: is a wall-to-wall XML database the right >solution for any problem? No. Can we define in advance >all of the problems it is or is not applicable to? Not >all. I agree with you 100% on that. > >As noted elsewhere, when looking for the proofs, it is >not XML that needs to be compared, but the data models. >As others have noted, there is lots of work being done >on these. Meanwhile, hybrids rule the niche today. > >I do note that the environment for which XML, (not markup) >was designed or adopted from SGML, is one of decentralized >and loosely coupled sources, not one where normalization >is the norm. Will that create update problems? You bet. >Like 404, it is a cost of using the system. The only >proof 404 needed was 50 years of trying to get around >it. Progress in fielding very large distributed hypermedia >systems was made only when that constraint was relaxed. >The way around the update problems so far is hybridization >and tightening the coupling. The ideal of full decoupling >is not just risky, it is unworkable to date. > >You're right about Curie. One shouldn't bet the farm >for a prize in husbandry, or die of the experiment, >but there would be no Wright Brothers without Lilienthal. > >len > > >From: lbradshaw@d... [mailto:lbradshaw@d...] > >Awww, now, gee whiz..... doing a math proof can be as exciting and >exhilarating as any other form of discovery, and doing so first can save >one many stubbed toes, later. > >After all, Codd's proofs led the way, as did Knuth's, and were not derived >from existing advanced art but from theory and science. While it probably >goes both ways, some proofs coming from experience and others derived >purely from theory. saying that waiting on proofs makes me a cave man who >is frightened of tomorrow is just personal. > >Which is something I will not respond to, :), other than to say that if >Curie had done the math, used the full scientific method, waited for >results and included advancements from other scientists, maybe she would >not have died of radiation poisoning. > >Thanks! > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >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> 
|
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
|
|||||||||
