Not moi. I am quite mad. And relieved to be so.
len
Quoting William Velasquez <>:
> Hi Roger,
>
> I'm not scientific-enough to answer your questions, but I'll share a
> few reasons why I think XML geeks here effectively are scientist:
>
> - Those who advocates for the status quo tend to contradict us
> - World could be a better place if they believe us
> - Most of our ideas are just too high to be understood by the mere mortals
> - Most of our ideas will be understood only after we die
> - We spent all of our lives studying to be data-scientists
> - Obtaining money is really hard for us, except for those lucky guys
> that get a contract with the government
>
> Finally:
> - Most people think we are crazy
> - Most of us look like mad scientists
>
>
> Just for fun ;-)
>
> - Bill
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Len Bullard [mailto:]
> Enviado el: domingo, 27 de abril de 2014 5:37 p. m.
> Para: 'Costello, Roger L.';
> Asunto: RE: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the
> wild and then create models (XML grammars)?
>
> Ok:
>
> 1. IADS. The elements mapped to the frame roots and then to the
> style sheet. Basically a single layer map with system-built
> structures that determined the root and divs and let the styler do
> the rest as the id structure was baked in: a system specific
> application. Reuse by mapping
> the content specific names be they para or brinyFish. IOW, best to speak
> the local dialects and use the local names. Implementation in need
> of language.
>
> Has Objects. Wants data.
>
> 2. Book Metaphor: use abstract structures of input output process boxes.
> Language in need of implementation. A property set looking for
> people to pick the names of named names.
>
> Transcription of exiting process models. Needs nothing. Does nothing.
>
> 3. MID 1 - abstract Microsoft GUI properties into a frame like
> format. Tag the layer types as classes of widgets that have the most
> common property set of the samples. A layer in need of a server.
> OTW, an intermediate target for HTML transform. Like XUL and XAML
> that follow, it is an idea that has merit in terms of things that
> need to be declared, but deficit in that this battle was won by HTML
> and none that have followed better the notion of basic gentagging:
> language of implementation(s).
>
> Has Classes. Want objects.
>
> 4. HumanML: research common discussions of human personality as
> shaped by events in a system that has both memory and correlative
> feedback given a
> core character set that is chosen by history and location. A loosely
> coupled property farm in need of filters and hookups. Objects with Pins.
>
> Tags is classes. Needs objects. Wants events.
>
> 6. Ad hoc: when I need an easy transform target.
>
> Bento boxes with sizes and named cargo. Has Data. Wants data.
>
> In short, system at hand determines means and methods of analysis,
> and if not implementation, then the question posed that initiates
> the research will shape what is to be marked.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 4:40 AM
> To:
> Subject: Are you an XML scientist? Do you observe data in the wild
> and then create models (XML grammars)?
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> A physicist observes nature and then creates a model of what he observed.
> The model often takes the form of a mathematical equation.
>
> A linguist observes usage of a language and then creates a model of
> what he observed. The model often takes the form of a context-free
> grammar. This is nicely expressed by the following passage from a
> wonderful book that I am
> reading:
>
> If we ignore enough detail we can
> recognize an underlying context-free
> structure in the sentences of a natural
> language, for example, English:
>
> Sentence --> Subject Verb Object
> Subject --> NounPhrase
> Object --> NounPhrase
> ...
>
> So the physicist and the linguist behave in much the same way: they
> observe nature and then model its laws/structure.
>
> Here's another relevant passage from the book that I am reading:
>
> Scenario: you observe a pattern in the
> strings that you are dealing with. So you
> create a grammar to describe the pattern.
>
> Do you do this? Do you follow the same mode of behavior as the
> physicist and the linguist when creating XML: do you observe streams
> and collections of data in the wild, determine the data's inherent
> structure, and then create a model (grammar) to reflect the
> structure? How do you ensure that the XML you create reflects the
> structure of the data? How do you determine the structure of data?
> Would you share a story of how you observed, determined structure,
> and then created a model (XML grammar) of the data?
>
>
> /Roger
>
>
>
