[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] fitness of XML for ontology(WAS: [ontology-summit] T

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Paul Tyson <phtyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:33:35 -0600
Message-id: <1391567615.6105.38.camel@tristan>
Rich,    (01)

Total agreement from me on 7 of 8 paragraphs.    (02)

On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 21:50 -0800, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Dear John, Duane and Paul,
> XML is a standard with a VERY large following.  It
> is often used for event processing, and for
> interchange of highly structured data between
> diverse computers and diverse applications.  For
> that reason, it is relatively easy for a
> standardized XML form to be interchanged.  But it
> is very difficult to develop your own standard XML
> form; at least it is very difficult compared to
> JSON.  
> Languages such as Delphi have XML parser
> components built into the IDE.  There are two
> kinds of such XML parsers which are both free to
> the average programmer with an IDE.  One component
> type takes its syntax from a file containing a
> specification of the objects, attributes and
> domains of a defined standard, while the other
> kind takes it syntax from nothing whatsoever, and
> just parses the XML into objects, attributes, and
> domain values.  
> Event processing is typically accomplished by the
> client sending a request in XML, and the server
> responding with the XML binding to values relevant
> to the event semantics.  A sequence of such
> messages makes up the entire event stream.  
> For example, the title of real estate properties
> tends to be expressed in an awkward textual
> description of the meets and bounds of the
> property.  That text is mostly unstructured, but
> other objects and attributes and values of the
> same XML message can be simple scalars designed to
> help process the event messages.  
> For the defined standards (or even for your
> particularly defined application even if it is
> unique), the parser does lots of error checking
> and provides exceptions wherever the standard is
> not met, either by omission or by commission.
> That makes it valuable in applications where such
> errors are made too frequently.  Typically that is
> for programmer-generated forms that go through
> several iterations until the programmers find a
> deterministic path through the standard.  
> The other kind, where the programmer defines a
> unique "standard" used only by that server and
> that client in a specific application, is less
> useful because it lacks such detailed error
> checking.  However, it still provides the rigidity
> of XML forms meant to convey the proper semantic
> information in an easily harnessed manner.  
> XML is here to stay, IMHO, because it fills the
> void left by lack of a truly semantic vehicle for
> transmission of messages.  For now, XML is the
> best choice, though it could certainly use
> improvement over time.  
> Also, IMHO, English (or other natural language) is
> the best vehicle for semantic transmission, but we
> have yet to perfect the mechanics of it.      (03)

IMHO that dream died with the Tower of Babel. Computers cannot revive
it.    (04)

--Paul    (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>