Re: Two Myths of XML

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:

> Comments and editorial suggestions are welcome.

Hehehehehheheheheheheheheh!

> 
> Two Myths of XML
> By Kendall Clark
> 
> 
>      A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will
>      unleash a revolution of new possibilities -- Teaser of Tim
>      Berners-Lee's Scientific America article, ``The Semantic Web,''
>      May 2001

"A revolution of new possibilities"? Faugh!

>      ...[A]pplying XML to the process of crafting legislation [has]
>      ... the potential at least of transforming the basic relationship
>      between citizens and their elected representatives. -- Alan
>      Kotok, ``[1]Can XML Help Write the Law?" May 9, 2001, XML.com

Bah.

>    One of my ongoing projects is to think and write clearly about the
>    social implications of computer technology, especially the Internet,
>    the Web, and free software. Each of these has been called
>    revolutionary by proponents. I'm always skeptical when I hear
>    ``revolution'' and ``revolutionary'', words that can be said far
>    more easily than they can be meant.

And babbletherd much more easily than said with meaning.
 
>    While computer technology might be used to aid radical social
>    change, I have argued that it is always already embedded (because it
>    doesn't fall, as if a gift of the gods, from the sky)

Heh. I liked this. But maybe add it at the end of the sentence and change
"because" to "after all,"?

> in very
>    particular social and historical contexts, most often ones in which
>    radical social change isn't on the agenda.

Does the latter bit matter? Arguably it's false in *some* sense: techno
cusps *are* put forth when certain large-scale social change is on the
agenda...just not the sort that eliminates or weakens elites. I.e., elites
instiute certain sorts of techno change *in order* to tighten
socio/economic control...often in "extreme" (aka "radical") ways.

> Except in extraordinary
>    circumstances, computer technology is developed and deployed by
>    corporations, i.e., institutions fundamentally opposed to radical
>    social change and, so, fundamentally committed to maintaining the
>    status quo.
>    
>    (The funding of computer technology development is often provided by
>    the public, especially in the case of the Internet, the Web, and
>    much free software. The costs and risks of development are borne by
>    the public; the profits, payoffs, and control of the developed and
>    deployed technology are reaped by corporations and investors -- neat
>    trick, huh?)

Yes, which is why I might underestimate the "developed" bit. The
interesting bit is the corportization of public spaces...no longer willing
to let the public be public in return for the profits and lessoned risks,
they want to control them utterly.

>    I have recently focused on two specific areas of computer
>    technology: the [2]Semantic Web and, one of its enabling,

Bah. Calling XML "enabling" just buys into the rhetoric. It's a
consitutive tech, but only because of social decisions. 

>    constitutive technologies, [3]XML. In what follows I debunk some
>    myths about XML and the Semantic Web by subjecting them to critical
>    inquiry. I examine two such myths, give examples of each, and
>    explain the truth behind the facade.
>    
>    1. XML Information is Open and Free
>    
>    The first XML myth is that information encoded in XML is necessarily
>    open and free.
>    
>    Many people who have been exposed to XML are prone to forgetting
>    and, hence, obscuring the most basic fact -- XML is a data format.
>    In fact, I'm tempted to say it's just a data format, it's merely a
>    data format. As the wider world goes, computer data formats aren't
>    all that interesting or significant. Of course, it's a data format
>    enmeshed in a range of assumptions, social practices, economic
>    arrangements, and so on. But it's still just a data format.
>    
>    What words like ``open'' and ``free'' can mean when applied to a
>    computer data format and what they can mean when applied to a
>    social practice or political institution have very little in
>    common. The intersection of these two ranges of meaning is,
>    practically speaking, nil. But the first myth, that information
>    encoded in XML is necessarily ``open'' and ``free'', arises
>    precisely from the mistaken belief that the intersection is
>    substantial and interesting.
>    
>    When XML advocates, like those at the [4]W3C, say that XML is
>    ``open'' they mean, approximately, that it isn't a proprietary data
>    format. Which means you can access XML created by Corporation A's
>    tools with Corporation B, C, or D's tools.

This isn't quite right, is it? XML isn't a dataformat *itself*, is
it? Maybe well-formed XML is. But if we add DTDs or other schemas, then
"XML" is a data format description language. (You know this, of course.)

The reason I raise it is that DTDs can be copyrighted. In fact, they *are*
copyrighted (as the specific expression of an idea). Thus, automatically,
whenever you make a DTD you make a proprietory *format*.

So there's at least three senses of "open", "open" as documented,
"open" as democratic, and "open" as "open to anyone to
use/change/etc." And at least two objects which may be open, the tool and
the product. XML, the tool, is reasonably open in at least two senses. But
what it generates can be closed in every sense.

> (In computer talk,
>    entities that produce software tools are called ``vendors'', a term
>    that almost always means, simply, corporation.) Or you can access
>    your XML-encoded information with the tools written by, say, Lucy F.
>    Hacker, an independent, free software developer who's written some
>    nifty Perl XML libraries.
>
>    In this limited, technical sense -- the sense in which XML is just
>    one computer data format among many, and one nearly identical (in
>    relevant parts) to SGML -- XML is ``open'' and ``free'' and rather a
>    decent evolutionary step toward interoperable information systems
>    (which are the only sort worth having).
>    
>    But calling public institutions, social practices, and economic
>    arrangements ``open'' and ``free'' is akin to calling them
>    democratic, egalitarian, and just. Whether or not any chunk of the
>    world is democratic, egalitarian, and just can never be simply a
>    matter of whether XML is used as a computer data format there. That
>    is, adding the XML computer data format to an undemocratic,
>    inegalitarian, or unjust chunk of the world will rarely, if ever,
>    make the crucial difference.

Verra true...*unless* there is an "XML spirit". I.e., why implement and
XML data format *unless* you intend it to be freely mungable? And once you
understand the joys of free munging..erhm...you'll be move to be
democratic? ;)
    
>    Thus to assume that because the government or some corporation uses
>    XML -- an open, free data format -- to encode some of its data that
>    government or corporation is (or is more) democratic, egalitarian,
>    or just is to assume, mistakenly, that 1) ``open'' and ``free'' can
>    mean the same thing when applied to social, political, and economic
>    chunks of the world as they mean when applied to computer data
>    formats; or 2) that the chief impediment to some government or
>    corporation becoming (or becoming more) democratic, egalitarian, or
>    just is that some of its data is encoded in a proprietary data
>    format. The first assumption is a conceptual error; the second is or
>    rests on a factual one.

Hmnph. Espeically since the gov uses SGML extensively *already*
:) Hmm. This flows from the security by obscurity error..."non-obscurity
is access". Or some such.

[snip]
>    Magical thinking about XML occurs oftenest 

"most often"...*please* :)

> in the brains of
>    technical managers and marketers -- that is, people who need to
>    understand something about XML, but who aren't really
>    technically-inclined, and so don't really understand much, if
>    anything, about XML.

Eh..Really? I think the w3c buys a lot of its own hype, and what of the
moronic trio? Or MPH? *Lots* of "geeky" types fall for the hype..indeed,
we may be even *more* vulnerable. Of course, there's vested interests
at stake: We're cooler if the magic is real. Things we want happen if the
magic is real. We get loads of money, fame, prestige if the magic is real.

> Thus they can often believe three absurd things
>    before lunch about XML's capabilities and virtues.
>    
>    Examples
>    
>    Alan Kotok's reporting of Patrice McDermott's (who's head of [7]OMB
>    Watch) interest in how the federal government might use XML gives a
>    fine example of magical thinking about XML:
>    
>      McDermott ... envisioned a standard government-wide XML
>      vocabulary that would link legislative activities with government
>      databases. This XML vocabulary would enable

Sheesh. A vocabulary's no good unless you can use it to *say* useful
things.

> the public to see the
>      relationship between legislative actions on one hand, with the
>      actual results of those actions as expressed in government
>      records, an idea that generated more than a little nervous
>      laughter among the meeting participants.

"nervous laughter"..."Oh my god, what *is* this idiot doing up
there? What's next...drumming naked in the woods?"

[snip]
>    Let's set aside the almost unimaginable scope of the project
>    McDermott implies when she suggests that one could use XML to link
>    legislative activity to its subsequent results in federal government
>    databases and information systems.

And the fact that if it could be done, it'd could be done with SQL, HTML,
etc. Magic #2 :)

> I want to focus attention on the
>    idea that there could be, as Kotok reports McDermott to have
>    suggested, ``a standard government-wide XML vocabulary''. I am
>    stunned that I should have to remind the head of OMB Watch that the
>    US federal government may be the most staggeringly complex human
>    institution in the history of staggeringly complex human
>    institutions. Its scope and breadth and coverage is massive.

And not just in *vocabulary*. Managing the *data*, however expressed, is
daunting. Managine *extra* data layered on top, more so. Achieving the
*encoding* is scary.

>    The very idea that there could be a single XML schema covering every
>    institutional information requirement of the US federal government
>    is a perfect example of the second magical thinking about XML,
>    namely, that XML makes possible things otherwise impossible. It does
>    not or, properly speaking, it cannot and never will.

Hmm. I don't feel the punch here. A modest XPointer thingy might do *some*
of the job. I'm confused about what level of detail he's suggesting. I'm
also confused why you're focusing on the difficulty of the *schema*. The
difficulty is, presumably, "making govt more accountable", or more
narrowly, "linking the bills to thier results as represented in gov
databases". It's hard to see how a schema helps all *that* much. But it's
easy to see how all that can be subverted (e.g., there *is* no clear
relationship between bills and *much* of the data in databases, lies and
mistakes are shot throughout, plus we just don't *understand* the
relationship between much of this; XML can't fix that lack...*except*
maybe by being a vehicle for a model that permits queries that produce
results that we can successfully interpret....note how little has to *do*
with XML.)

So there's two bits: That such a Schema is easy or possible (and what
about it *is* possible or useful, and how to decided) and that such a
schema would do what it was claimed to do.

Maybe there's a third version of magical thinking, a varient of the
second: Making an XML vocab *is* making a useful
model/datastructure/information system. We all know that making an XML
vocab is easy...just "dream up" some tags. But even *encoding* existing
models in XML is non-trivial (look at RDF/XML). Just *serializing* simple
datastructures is fraught. XML provides *no* formalism or procedure for
generating useful models of complex phenomena. Or even simple
phenomena. So, coming up with an XML schema puts the cart before the
horse.  

You get at this in the next paragragh, but it's interesting to note that
XML structures...even with XML Schema...are not, in themselves all that
representationally powerful.

>    (To understand why this is magical thinking, try to write in plain
>    English prose -- or in any language of your choosing -- a
>    nontrivial, interesting vocabulary for describing the information
>    encoding requirements of the US federal government. Or, to make
>    things easier, how about doing that for just the executive branch?
>    Or, again easier, just the Justice Department. Take care that your
>    head doesn't explode in the process.)

Heck, then *using* it. Think about how much broken *XML* there is out
there, much less HTML. Even if we could *design* it, imagine trying to
*train* everyone to use it properly.

>    In fact McDermott's only rival for being made the canonical instance
>    of the myth that XML schemas

Schemas or XML? I think it's XML that has the magic, though...that a
'vocab is all you need' when historically that's just been manifest false
is the "adding xml makes impossible things trivial" trope.

[snip]
>    Which desperately bespeaks the ancient human dream, as old as the
>    first stirrings of civilization, of the perfect language, now
>    rebirthed of technophilic parents. I'd suggest a careful reading of
>    Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language if I thought it
>    would help.

But you haven't gotten the *good* bit was that this was *impossible*
before XML and *XML* makes it possible.

[snip]
>    The other facet of taking technology to be independent of the social
>    context within which it always already operates is to misjudge ts
>    its alliance and use. In other words, the bad guys always have the
>    newest, bestest, fastest, powerfulest stuff, and they always have
>    more of it, and they seemingly always employ the people who created
>    it. And, generally, any tool can be used to impede social change as
>    well as to foster it.

Indeed, I'd actually say that it's *easier* to maintain status quo via
technotricks than to overthrow it.

Excellent article Kendallboo. I think there's a bit of confusion in the
mid bits, and, really, there are Splendid with a capital s HumanML
quotes:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200102/msg00001.html

"""So far, we have represented many human traits as emoticons--such as
:-),
LOL, (L), :-(.  These efforts certainly help convey some human qualities.
They have enhanced human expression, but their benefits are informal,
non-standard, and ultimately limited.  However, with the current XML
framework we now have, we can finally integrate much deeper human aspects
within our communication.  The result will be a substantial enhancement in
the quality of human communications, and the elimination of much
misunderstanding in society."""

HAHAHAHHA! *Finally*, due to the current XML framework we now have, we can
integrate much deeper human aspects within our communication! Finally!

Further down:

"""So far, we have begun to embed rudimentary human aspects within our
communication, through the use of emoticons and acronyms such as  :), lol,
>P, :D, (L) etc.  These have certainly helped convey human expression
within
our messages.  However, their use has been informal, non-standard, and
quite
limited.  With HumanML, we finally have the platform to embed a much
richer
human expression in our messages.  We will finally have the structure to
embed deep human characteristics, such as our 'emotional traits',
'rationale', 'intent', and 'attitude'.  This meta-information will be
contained within each statement, to allow clear and total human
communication for the first time in our history."""

Finally!

And further:

"""The HumanML specification will be built on top of current
endeavors.  Our
focus will be to embed root human characteristics in our messages, and
help
bring humanity towards universal empathy.  It will be a very interesting
world in the future, where we finally begin to work together, with both
universal knowledge, and universal empathy.

These are no longer flowery far-off aspirations.  These are finally
concrete
attainable endeavors, now possible through XML."""

*Now* possible through XML!!!!!??!!

Oh, and: http://www.virtuum.com/humanml.htm

I'm just dying reading *that*.

lasting interpersonal emotions
	love scalar   
  	enmity scalar   
 	politeness scalar 

Oh yeah, human communication will SOAR!

And let's not forget Jorn:
	http://www.mailgate.org/comp/comp.ai.nat-lang/msg00840.html

:)

Cheers,
Bijan.