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

Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re: XML-aware

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re: XML-aware programming language?
• From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:27:43 -0500
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=TTDXb2FAo2X7BVu86esB0fDw9xNXxXHOndYwaxwms4medO9l0bvvu4BY0HLBYCjc0FWZpcjjFsMQ5G9qRqn0CdmQHeveWx0/QP346E/ll5oGS+pyAawZD8IiGMapihamuIM+xzwW/pimIsKLCwTLHRnA44KmaK0kL9WPq3OCgFg=
• In-reply-to: <41AF0F84.3000301@m...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D103BD1C09@R...> <e3a5cb2c04113018202396be42@m...> <41AD4552.5010506@z...> <B8EB9F86-4360-11D9-9E2D-000393DC762C@m...> <e3a5cb2c041201094772590422@m...> <F20896E7-442F-11D9-82E6-000393DC762C@m...> <41AF0F84.3000301@m...>
• Reply-to: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:50:12 -0500, Elliotte Harold
<elharo@m...> wrote:

> 
 
> This is *a* data model. It is not *the* data model. There is no one XML
> data model, and there will not be. The XQuery/XPath 2.0 Data Model will
> only be the foundation for XQuery and XSLT 2. Many other developers will
> continue to profitably use other data models that better meet their
> needs. XML interoperability is based on exchanging syntax, not
> representations of data models.

OK, maybe you could back up those assertions:  Why won't there be a
single "XML" data model at some point?  I suspect one will emerge
simply because the insanity of end users having to switch back and
forth from a DOM-ish view to an XPath-ish view of namespaces and
syntax sugar is unsustainable.

And what is the *evidence* that "XML interoperability is based on
exchanging syntax"?  As I see it, lots of DOM scripts work in multiple
browsers, *all* XQuery-based integrations work off a representation of
a data model that is independent of syntax, many "binary XML" formats
are essentially serializations of the SAX event stream yet
higher-level tools don't care ....

Nobody disputes that having a canonical bits on the wire format for
XML is a Good Thing and is the interop definition of last resort.  The
disagreement is over whether that raw syntax is an appropriate
representation for real-world programmers to work with directly.  If
anything, I'd argue that only a small subset of XML consumers (as
opposed to authors) deal with it at the bits on the wire level, and
many of them (such as RSS aggregator developers?) treat it as XML-ish
tagged text rather than well-formed XML.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re: XML-aware programming language?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Ontolgies, Mappings and Transformations (was RE: Web Services/SOA)
    • From: Daniela Florescu <dflorescu@m...>
  • XML-aware programming language? - was Re: Ontolgies, Mappings and Transformations
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Re: XML-aware programming language?
    • From: Daniela Florescu <dflorescu@m...>
  • Re: XML-aware programming language?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: xml schema question: subst group example in Primer?
• Next by Date: Re: XML-aware programming language?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML-aware programming language?
• Next by thread: Re: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re: XML-aware programming language?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread