[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The year is 2027, and we need to examine archivedX ML docu
I'd think that something higher in the stack would be more likely to supersede XML. XML (or any other such markup) makes explicit what was previously implicit. Because it is explicit, it can be processed reliably by computer with minimal human intervention. Advances in storage devices solve the explosion in size that results from explicit markup. Some might argue that advances in text processing could make it unnecessary to explicitly mark many, if not all, of the 350 plus elements in our current publishing DTD. I think that's a pipedream, but such advances should at least be able to separate markup from content. Physical obsolescence and logical obsolescence are distinct, even if intertwined. The USPTO publishes some 10,000 documents per week in XML, so this discussion has some relevance to our work. When a patent file wrapper reaches age 40, we send it to NARA. What we will do when the file wrapper is not paper, is not yet determined, but one possible scenario is that the USPTO will retain responsibility for keeping archived file wrappers accessible indefinitely as a kind of adjunct to NARA. Yes, "indefinitely" is the correct term. Much more problematic is how to deal with documents we did not create, but received from applicants. If a court wants to see what was submitted, not what it was transformed into for internal processing or publishing, will it be possible to render it as it would have been seen at the time of submission? In the end, I suspect that the technological uncertainties will drive legal decisions that will drive cultural and policy changes that will reshape our concept of "archives" to something much more abstract than it is at present. Ink on paper sealed with red wax has a beauty all its own, but the Magna Carta survives even if that artifact is lost. Perhaps anything that has not achieved a comparable level of independence from its physical storage deserves to be forgotten. (Forgive me, it's late and I'm tired.) Bruce B Cox Manager, Standards Development Division Systems Development and Maintenance Group U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Views expressed in this message are my personal opinions and do not represent official policy of the USPTO. -----Original Message----- From: Len Bullard [mailto:len.bullard@u...] Sent: 2007 September 11, Tuesday 15:50 To: Tim.Bray@S...; abcoatesecure-xmldev@y... Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: The year is 2027, and we need to examine archived X ML documents from 2007 ... Given that XML became possible only once the costs of memory and CPUs dropped, the power increased and UNICODE became available, another way to look at the question is to ask if anything lower in the stack (say hardware or other language standards) might change such that XML becomes obsolete the way that SGML did. XML simplified SGML. What might change to make XML become 'too hard'? With XML, a sort of rabbit trail was left back to SGML through Clark's XML/SGML Declaration although I don't know of anyone using it yet. If changes did occur, what would be the XML rabbit trail? Since this is a speculative question, one might want to consider all the possible changes. For example, if the researcher does manage to get memory to work in the third dimension (the racetrack), and density takes another quantum leap forward, or quantum computing becomes practical, what changes might occur? As the costs of the iron go down and the power increases, the code practices become sloppier and programmers begin to do less 'to the metal' work. One might consider that as the user/machine interface became more intelligent, less rigor could be required in the instructions. In 2027, the entity looking at dredging up the XML might not be a human. It might be the case that the rabbit trail consists of little bridges the humans were adding to ensure data goes forward just as markup was added (metadata can be seen as a bridge among islands of certainty). len From: Tim.Bray@S... [mailto:Tim.Bray@S...] Maybe I'm missing something, but XML feels like a safer long-term bet to me if only because almost all those tools are (a) open-source, and (b) written in mainstream languages and (c) written for portability. So you won't get the situation you get in some IT shops I've seen where a horrible old PDP-11 or Unisys box is kept limping along at great expense because they occasionally need some long-forgotten black-box proprietary app. I.e., whatever it is we call a "computer" in 2027 will probably run libxml2 and Jing just fine. -T This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|