Altova Mailing List Archives
>xml-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - The Power of Groves
>Thread Next - XML-DEV JEWELS (was : XML-DEV on Groves)
Re: The Power of Groves
Date: 2/10/2000 1:30:00 AM
At 07:25 PM 2/9/00 -0600, Len Bullard wrote: >W. Eliot Kimber wrote: >> > >I am *abusing* Eliot a little here because we need to have some >better understandings in our community and this is an example >of how easy the misunderstandings perpetuate, and in the rapid >feedback of lists to lists to lists, amplify. I don't think we should abuse anyone on this list - we have a common challenge here that is very tough and we need all our resources! In personal public gratitude to Eliot I mention just two things: - he took the trouble to write at length and very lucidly on this list about "links" - it's about 2-2.5 years ago - in response to my ignorant bleatings. - he spent ca 3 hours sitting on the floor with me at SGML Paris explaining Architectural forms (and I am sure groves came into it as well). Groves are hard for people like me because they are abstract. The DSSSL standard is impenetrable to most people - there are over 70 things in the property set. We have had this discussion on XML-DEV before and it culminated in James Clark posting a minimal property set for XML (ca 20-30 things) and remarking (essentially to me something like "that wasn't too difficult, was it?". *After the event* it wasn't. But no one has run with it to the extent of making it happen. > >What we should not allow, and only by some concerted effort >can we stop, is to proceed in parallel efforts without >common definitions, particularly when these exist, and the >expertise to use them exists. It is not the power of >groves that holds my interest; it is the way of groves. Perhaps JamesC's posting (I am offline so cannot pinpoint it) is a starting point. I do, however, recall an analysis by Henry Thompson of the complete grove diagram of a very simple XML file with 1-2 elements types and attributes and including a DTD and it was surprisingly complex. I don't think it was on this list - probably XML-SIG. Groves are not trivial. something similar - including a > >OASIS owns this list now. OASIS emerged from the SGML infrastructure. >It has new blood and the W3C has XML but some part of >OASIS should honor its origins. If OASIS wants to be >a force for open standards, wants to own processes, and wants, >even desperately needs the resources of XML DEV, then it >should be very cognizant of the requests from this >list to ensure open processes. If the current polity >cannot do this, then the tools that ISO created such as >groves to ensure open, coherent standards should be >used by a more resilient community, dedicated, willing >and able to carry out the work unafraid of the press, >the whispers of powers from MIT, the incursions of >the powers from Silicon Valley and Redmond, unafraid >of anything but exhaustion. Megginson can't carry >the load for SAX, but I too, like Simon, would think twice >about surrendering it if it goes behind closed doors. Nothing must go behind closed doors > >And I, like Steven and Eliot, believe we should consider >the tools made available, freely, openly, and by dint >of years of hard work. I do not, like others, think that >we are making this up as we go. SAX was done >here. Xschemas were done here before they were turned >over to the W3C. The existence proof refutes the >position that we are making this up as we go. Agreed. This is what henry and I devoted our time to. > > >Groves. Let's keep going in this thread and see if it >is the jewel. The problem for groves is marketing, and for that we need critical mass or people, tools, tutorials and demonstrators. My problem with all of this area (groves, hyTime, AFs) is that although I can see it is a coherent and consistent way to do things it is a lot of effort to take on board. Part of our problem is that XML syntax is easy - especially because of its resemblance to HTML. The fundamental architectural problems are hidden, and difficult. Unless there are portable tools which use these concepts and which present a relatively coherent way forward, the Desperate XML Hacker is going to invent their own - on the fly - and end up in the tarpits. I agree it's a chicken and egg process. P.