Re: Using TM to help define the future of XML

Graham,

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:24 +0100, Graham Moore wrote:
> What they need is something like HyTime Groves on drugs, how about
> HyperGroves? ;)
> 

Understand the humor but graph software has come a long way since
HyTime.

Why the limit to groves?

Why not HyperGraphs?

Minus the ugly syntax overlay. 

Default API is the "original" format, if you want a different one, then
and only then do you have to write a mapping to the desired format.

Makes the data format a representation, which is all a data format ever
is. Pick one. 

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

> On 1 December 2010 11:16, Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I know I cross-posed some of the chatter on XML-DEV recently, but it's gotten even more interesting and relevant.  There is growing recognition that if something proactive isn't done, things are going evolve in ways that aren't necessary good for the XML community.
> >
> > Like my last set of posts, I think this is a potential opportunity to remind the XML community about Topic Maps, because of statements like:
> >
> > On 1 Dec 2010, at 3:07 AM, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> >> the XML standards community needs to understand that it has to reach out and recognize that the infoset can have multiple serializations, that not all those serializations are going to involve angle brackets, and that collections of content ultimately will end up becoming more important than individual documents.
> >
> > And in a separate email:
> >
> > On 1 Dec 2010, at 3:17 AM, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, I'd also agree with Dave Pawson's point here. Maybe it's time to reinvent the wheel with an SXML. We know what worked and what didn't. We still have a fundamental disconnect between XML and Javascript that needs to be addressed, and attempting to do it within the rubric and process of XML looks to be a non-starter.
> >>
> >> Some areas that I'd like to see -
> >>
> >>       • Creating a unified XML/JSON layer, including agreed upon serializations and working to extend both XML and JSON to be fully transferable.
> >>       • Creating a consistent mechanism for the depiction of both closed ontologies (XML) and open ontologies (RDF/OWL).
> >>       • Creating a consistent path/query layer between the syntactic (XQuery) and the semantic (SPARQL)
> >>       • Working with ECMA and the browser and mobile vendors to provide a universal first class SXML representation.
> >>       • A rethinking of distributed linking systems, especially in light of the emergence of RESTful architectures
> >> These are big areas. They'll require that people check in preconceived notions at the door, and they will require champions that will be willing to both put in the effort to be the reference implementors and to defend the specifications from being co-opted by a given vendor.
> >
> > Now, if you look at what they're really trying to do: come up with an abstract way to represent information and define a consistent path/query layer between syntax & semantics, that to me sure sounds like areas where the Topic Maps community might be able to help.
> >
> > If you haven't read the whole thread yet (or you're not an xml-dev subscriber), I highly recommend the whole "James Clark: XML versus the Web" thread.
> >
> > I don't want to re-hash the whole marketing issue again, but what, in pragmatic steps, can we as a community do to best engage with and participate in the subsequent rebirth/realignment of XML?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > ast
> > --
> > Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]>
> > http://atownley.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > topicmapmail mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> >
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail