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)
Regards,
--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)
|