Re: RE: XML Turing test

> Conclusion: it doesn’t matter how you map one XML to another. If they
both elicit the same response in applications, then the mapping is
correct/equivalent. By definition.

> Do you agree?

Could we say they are "entangled" as in quantum physics?  😆😆😆

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:56 AM Roger L Costello <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> An engineer mapped this XML form:
>
> <Document>
>     <Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> to this XML form:
>
> <Document>
>     <Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> That’s a bizarre mapping, right?
>
> Let’s not be so quick to judge.
>
> The allowable values of Pencil_Manufacturer are: Staedtler, Faber, and
> Camlin.
>
> The allowable values of Umbrella_Manufacturer are: Totes, Pogessi, and
> Dynateck.
>
> The engineer mapped the values as follows:
>
> Staedtler --> Totes
> Faber --> Pogessi
> Camlin --> Dynateck
>
> Question: Is that a correct mapping? Are the two forms equivalent?
>
> It seems preposterous to even consider the two forms as equivalent. After
> all, how can a document containing data about pencil manufacturers be
> equivalent to a document containing data about umbrella manufacturers?
>
> Possibly it’s not so preposterous.
>
> What does it mean for two forms to be equivalent? Certainly they are not
> equivalent with regard to string comparison:
>
> “pencil-manufacterer” != “umbrella-manufacturer”
>
> How about semantic equivalence? Intuitively we all know that pencils are
> not the same as umbrellas.
>
> And yet, the applications that process the two forms produce the same
> output. In my example I said that both applications output 1, 2, 3, but the
> output could be something far more complex, such as outputs that control
> the flight of an aircraft.
>
> If this form:
>
> <Document>
>     <Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> and this form:
>
> <Document>
>     <Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> are input into an aircraft’s Flight Management System (FMS) and both
> result in the aircraft flying the same way, are the two forms equivalent?
>
> From the perspective of how they influence the application (aircraft FMS)
> they are the same.
>
> From the perspective of semantics they are different.
>
> From the perspective of syntax they are different.
>
> Conclusion: it doesn’t matter how you map one XML to another. If they both
> elicit the same response in applications, then the mapping is
> correct/equivalent. By definition.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> /Roger
>