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

Re: Names As Types

• To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Names As Types
• From: "Nathan Young" <natyoung@c...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:45:48 -0700
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0720732C@h...>
• Organization: Cisco Systems
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0720732C@h...>
• User-agent: Opera M2/8.01 (Win32, build 7642)

OK, learning from Vladimir's example how about this stack?

  1. People
  2. private ideas
  3. private tools
  4. shared ideas
  5. shared vocabulary/language
  6. shared tools
  7. shared processes
  8. people

examples of each layer

  1. me
  2. hungry
  3. stick I use to pick my teeth
  4. "non-zero sum game"
  5. English
  6. XML (or the hammer/nail/lumber combination for construction)
  7. network computer application (or an assembly line factory)(or a  
freeway)
  8. mouse wigglers (or widget buyers)

------------->N



On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:23:41 -0700, Bullard, Claude L (Len)  
<len.bullard@i...> wrote:

> No, that's an acceptable stack, Vladimir.
>
> What say other turtles?
>
> I know some of you prefer a turtleZero, but we
> can punt that away safely until we get to running
> turtles and rough dancing.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Vladimir Gapeyev [mailto:vgapeyev@s...]
>
> Doesn't the following stack fit the bill?:
>
> Top:     7. Humans
>
>           6. Applications
>
>           5. High-level programming languages
>
>           4. Declarative invariants
>
>           3. Types (i.e., structural constraints)
>
>           2. Abstract syntax  [XML Infoset, or other XML data models]
>
> Bottom:  1. Concrete syntax  [XML]
>
>
> This is just an XML-specific instance of the stack common to software in
> general.  The stack became more refined over the decades: originally all
> semantics was in assembly-coded applications (#6), but gradually the
> layers #2-#5 have separated.
>
> Unfortunately, XML practice doesn't align along this stack cleanly.  (I'd
> say, this is too bad for practice ;-) E.g., W3C Schema spreads across
> several layers, tightly glueing them together: it hijacks #2 by putting
> PSVI instead of the Infoset, it's bulk (rightly so) is #3, but it also  
> has
> things belonging to #4 (e.g. key/keyref constraints) and even #5 or #6
> (e.g. the mechanism for filling-in default values and the mechanism for
> translating XML into PSVI).
>
> Or you were asking about something totally different?  If you have stuff
> like RDF in mind, it is an application that uses XML as just a substrate
> on which it grows.  (I.e., RDF has a similar stack, and if we care only
> about XML-based RDF, the interesting part of this stack is inside #5 and
> #6 above.)  But RDF, or similar "semantic web" developments, can't be the
> only way to give XML semantics!  (Sorry if the RDF guess was wrong)
>
> VG
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>



-- 


.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.

Nathan Young
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@c...

• References:
  • RE: Names As Types
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Names As Types
• Next by Date: RE: Names As Types
• Previous by thread: RE: Names As Types
• Next by thread: RE: Names As Types
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread