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

Re: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re:[xml-d

• To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: Re: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was Re: XML-aware programming language?
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:35:01 +0000
• Cc: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c041202073026a80e86@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...> <e3a5cb2c0412020527657a9166@m...> <41AF1F1B.8020906@m...> <e3a5cb2c041202073026a80e86@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Michael Champion wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:56:43 -0500, Elliotte Harold
> <elharo@m...> wrote:
> 
>> Of course, everyone will use some data
>>model to process their XML. However, everyone will not use the same data
>>model. Each will choose the data model that meets their needs. Sometimes
>>this data model won't look anything like XML. Often, they'll have
>>several different layers of data models. Claiming that everybody must
>>use the same data model to process XML in order to achieve
>>interoperability is just as silly as claiming everyone must use the same
>>programming language. Data models are a local choice, not a global one.
> 
> 
> Substitute "synatax" for "data model" and all these arguments could be
> used to advocate against standardizing on a one-size-fits-all syntax
> such as XML text :-)  

Substitute "grammar productions" for "syntax" and Elliote's argument 
stands imho.


> Just as XML is sub-optimal for just about any
> particular use case but good enough for a wide range of them, there is
> something to be said for having a common XML data model that hits some
> sort of 80:20 point for typical use cases.  

That would be XPath. Nothing else is remotely as useful.


> Nobody I know is arguing anything remotely resembling "everybody must
> use the same data model to process XML".  The point of cleaning up the
> data model mess would be to rectify the ugly mismatches between DOM
> and XInclude, DOM and XPath, etc., i.e. make simple things much
> simpler for novices, not make life harder for the  uber-geeks who are
> comfortable with the current situation.

It's not a data models problem. A new/unified/yet-another-pet model for 
XML doesn't help me as a programmer.

cheers
Bill

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

• Prev by Date: RE: What niche is XQuery targeting?
• Next by Date: RE: XML-aware programming language?
• Previous by thread: Re: Syntax vs Datamodel permathread, round n+1 - was 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