Graphs are the simplest of trees - simple and general. And we see the chink in the XML armor.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
errrr.... not saying i'm a genius. Any real solution has to be simple. thats all.
4:21 PM
Friday, July 16, 2004
Simplicity
XML Must DIE
I have never known and probably never will know, what the dickens the big deal is with XML anyway!!!! It was always, Always! a minor technology; when compared to SGML, its almost insignificant. I ask myself, what is the purpose of XML.
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simple, very flexible text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges of large-scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web.(Extensible Markup Language Activity Statement, http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity, May 2004)
So how does it 'meet the challenges of ..... publishing'? By providing a simple way of defining information - infomation meant for the web. And what is this simple method based on? A tree structure! I repeat, nay rewrite, A tree structure! This is the crux of the matter! & the fact that all of us have missed!
A basic premise of XML is, that all information used in an electronic environment can be represented using a tree structure. This is a hidden premise that skulks around hiding and jumps you from behind and delivers a sharp thwack on the head!
I cannot take credit for this point of view, it was brought up by a person at an opensource conference. It is unfortunate that i do not know this chap because the significance of his statement is well.... very significant!
a) What is so special about a tree structure? Has anyone proved that any kind of information can be represented by it?
b) Are there any formal methods for transformation of information encapsulated in trees?
I don't think so.
Also, it is very interesting to note that although industry has bought this XML concept lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, academia has been rather slow on the uptake. Might this be because XML has no solid universal theoretical foundation?
If this is the case, what kind of damage will XML do to the science of information representation? By how many years will the discovery of a universal information representation scheme, be delayed?
The only redeeming quality of XML is that it is very 'tightly defined' and very 'clean'- Strong syntax & semantics. However, it gives us an illusion of simplicity. After all the very first and only scheme to bring some order to the electronic information mayhem, will undoubtedly 'seem' simple. Anything would!
And isn't it fishy that the .Net webservices rely heavily on XML?
What we need is a genuinely simple universal solution to information representation. It's out there somewhere! But before it is discovered,....
XML MUST DIE! 4:09 PM
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simple, very flexible text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges of large-scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web.(Extensible Markup Language Activity Statement, http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity, May 2004)
So how does it 'meet the challenges of ..... publishing'? By providing a simple way of defining information - infomation meant for the web. And what is this simple method based on? A tree structure! I repeat, nay rewrite, A tree structure! This is the crux of the matter! & the fact that all of us have missed!
A basic premise of XML is, that all information used in an electronic environment can be represented using a tree structure. This is a hidden premise that skulks around hiding and jumps you from behind and delivers a sharp thwack on the head!
I cannot take credit for this point of view, it was brought up by a person at an opensource conference. It is unfortunate that i do not know this chap because the significance of his statement is well.... very significant!
a) What is so special about a tree structure? Has anyone proved that any kind of information can be represented by it?
b) Are there any formal methods for transformation of information encapsulated in trees?
I don't think so.
Also, it is very interesting to note that although industry has bought this XML concept lock, stock, and two smoking barrels, academia has been rather slow on the uptake. Might this be because XML has no solid universal theoretical foundation?
If this is the case, what kind of damage will XML do to the science of information representation? By how many years will the discovery of a universal information representation scheme, be delayed?
The only redeeming quality of XML is that it is very 'tightly defined' and very 'clean'- Strong syntax & semantics. However, it gives us an illusion of simplicity. After all the very first and only scheme to bring some order to the electronic information mayhem, will undoubtedly 'seem' simple. Anything would!
And isn't it fishy that the .Net webservices rely heavily on XML?
What we need is a genuinely simple universal solution to information representation. It's out there somewhere! But before it is discovered,....
XML MUST DIE! 4:09 PM
Open Source..... My Take
OpenSource - the Woodstock of the, 2000...... (Oh Frink! that doesn't go!) Primogenial Decade of the Third Millennium ( now that's funky!). And it's a Woodstock minus all those annoying babies (am I getting things mixed up - Baby Boomers were linked to Woodstock weren't they?). My thoughts, well, how do I put this mildly? REVOLUTION!!!!.
But, ( I really love that but- not the word 'but', but 'that' particular 'but' - you know the one at the beginning of this sentence - it should be pronounced with emphasis for full effect & very loud - shout ) not in any way that most people think its a revolution. The most popular pro-opensource arguments are:
1. Linus' Law - "Given a lot of eyeballs, all problems become shallow" : This seems to be the primary reason why opensource software is so high in quality. Hence, this seems to be the way forward.
2. Hiding the source is an atrocity of humongous proportions from a consumer point of view - you simply cannot restrict the users rights in this way: The car with welded hood argument.
3. The equation argument: Do we pay Newtons descendents a royalty each time we use his Law of Gravitation?
4. We hate micro###$$@**%!soft - anything that challenges microsoft world dominance is Good! (This is by far the best of the lot btw)
Methinks, though, that opensource is way more important - While popular opinion is that open source IS the next big paradigm shift in software engineering, I think that opensource will give birth to Formal Computer Science . I know, I know, this is where you, the reader goes, - What the FRINK is this Hobo @? Is he an idiot or what? Doesn't he know that Computer Science is well established already?
Woah ...... But is it well established? Is it established in the sense that Physics or Chemsitry is established as scientific disciplines? I think NOT. I think that the maturity of computer science is equivalent to the maturity of Physics in the Galilaec Age. I strongly suspect that computer scientists are still waiting for the Computer Science equivalent of Newton to come along and set things in order!
Now the question is, "Is the appearance of Newton like figures, a completely random occurrence?" I think not. I think that the free availability of knowledge catalyzes the process of Newton- like figures popping up throughout history and Formalizing Scientific Disciplines. The Renaissance Age which led to the publication of books resulted in knowledge of a few 'alchemists' and 'wizards' becoming accessible to a larger group of individuals. This was the knowledge build up which resulted in Newton formalizing the scientific discipline of Physics.
Is this always the case? What about the Einsteinien Revolution? Didn't that happen in a time of war? When scientific discoveries were closely guarded secrets? Well the answer is yes it did. BUT (again I love this but), scientific information was made freely available for a significant scientific community & funding made available to that community. So even the Einsteinien revolution took place in an age where information WAS shared - albeit amongst a small community - but a community that was not confined to a single company or even country!
So here is the jist of what I have said so far:
1. Formalization of sciences comes in the wake of 'shared knowledge'.
2. Computer Science is yet to be formalized
3. So far a lot of computer science knowledge has been locked up in 'closed source' Software.
So here's how I see the score( finally - I can almost hear the sighs of relief);
The Opensource Paradigm is poised to kick the doors of knowledge in Computing wide open! This will lead to a renaissance in computing which will inevitably(hopefully) result in a formalized Science of Computing!
4:05 PM
But, ( I really love that but- not the word 'but', but 'that' particular 'but' - you know the one at the beginning of this sentence - it should be pronounced with emphasis for full effect & very loud - shout ) not in any way that most people think its a revolution. The most popular pro-opensource arguments are:
1. Linus' Law - "Given a lot of eyeballs, all problems become shallow" : This seems to be the primary reason why opensource software is so high in quality. Hence, this seems to be the way forward.
2. Hiding the source is an atrocity of humongous proportions from a consumer point of view - you simply cannot restrict the users rights in this way: The car with welded hood argument.
3. The equation argument: Do we pay Newtons descendents a royalty each time we use his Law of Gravitation?
4. We hate micro###$$@**%!soft - anything that challenges microsoft world dominance is Good! (This is by far the best of the lot btw)
Methinks, though, that opensource is way more important - While popular opinion is that open source IS the next big paradigm shift in software engineering, I think that opensource will give birth to Formal Computer Science . I know, I know, this is where you, the reader goes, - What the FRINK is this Hobo @? Is he an idiot or what? Doesn't he know that Computer Science is well established already?
Woah ...... But is it well established? Is it established in the sense that Physics or Chemsitry is established as scientific disciplines? I think NOT. I think that the maturity of computer science is equivalent to the maturity of Physics in the Galilaec Age. I strongly suspect that computer scientists are still waiting for the Computer Science equivalent of Newton to come along and set things in order!
Now the question is, "Is the appearance of Newton like figures, a completely random occurrence?" I think not. I think that the free availability of knowledge catalyzes the process of Newton- like figures popping up throughout history and Formalizing Scientific Disciplines. The Renaissance Age which led to the publication of books resulted in knowledge of a few 'alchemists' and 'wizards' becoming accessible to a larger group of individuals. This was the knowledge build up which resulted in Newton formalizing the scientific discipline of Physics.
Is this always the case? What about the Einsteinien Revolution? Didn't that happen in a time of war? When scientific discoveries were closely guarded secrets? Well the answer is yes it did. BUT (again I love this but), scientific information was made freely available for a significant scientific community & funding made available to that community. So even the Einsteinien revolution took place in an age where information WAS shared - albeit amongst a small community - but a community that was not confined to a single company or even country!
So here is the jist of what I have said so far:
1. Formalization of sciences comes in the wake of 'shared knowledge'.
2. Computer Science is yet to be formalized
3. So far a lot of computer science knowledge has been locked up in 'closed source' Software.
So here's how I see the score( finally - I can almost hear the sighs of relief);
The Opensource Paradigm is poised to kick the doors of knowledge in Computing wide open! This will lead to a renaissance in computing which will inevitably(hopefully) result in a formalized Science of Computing!
4:05 PM
Information Theory - Man Have we SCREWED UP!
Information Theory is seriously flawed! or at least severely limited. Any sound theory has to build on basics ,axioms, fundamentals - the real unexplainable. Any theory that is built on anything but the most primitive of axioms runs the risk of being limited. An example to illustrate the point, with apologies to Sir Isaac Newton & Albert Einstein. Newton assumed that 'time' was a very special quantity - an absolute whereas other fundamental measurements such as length and velocity were relative. Some time later Einstein comes along and questions the 'absoluteness' of time. He assumes that there is nothing at all very special about time - it's just the reading you get from a clock. There is no such thing as time flowing from the past & into the future. From this simple but 'fundamental' axiom comes the Theory of Special Relativity, which has superseded Newtonian mechanics.
I believe that we are taking obviously non-fundamental axioms to be the basis of information theory. This is a bit of a tongue in cheek statement because I have absolutely no knowledge of Information Theory - but what the heck eh? Why should I let a minor issue like that stop me?
As I understand it, contemporary Information Theory builds on the representation of binary or character data. BUT, methinks data representation takes a much more fundamental form.
Isn't the most basic representation of data, the strength and direction of an electric field? The physical manifestation of data in the human brain would be in the form of synaptic configurations characterized by the strength and direction of an E-M Field. Even the storage of binarised data in modern computers is at its most basic level characterized by the strength and direction of an E-M Field.
SO the conclusion: Any Theory on Information has to be based on Electro Magnetic Theory - Not on pure statistical quantization!
Note to self - Investigate Information Theory.
3:49 PM
I believe that we are taking obviously non-fundamental axioms to be the basis of information theory. This is a bit of a tongue in cheek statement because I have absolutely no knowledge of Information Theory - but what the heck eh? Why should I let a minor issue like that stop me?
As I understand it, contemporary Information Theory builds on the representation of binary or character data. BUT, methinks data representation takes a much more fundamental form.
Isn't the most basic representation of data, the strength and direction of an electric field? The physical manifestation of data in the human brain would be in the form of synaptic configurations characterized by the strength and direction of an E-M Field. Even the storage of binarised data in modern computers is at its most basic level characterized by the strength and direction of an E-M Field.
SO the conclusion: Any Theory on Information has to be based on Electro Magnetic Theory - Not on pure statistical quantization!
Note to self - Investigate Information Theory.
3:49 PM
© gumz 2005 - Powered for Blogger by Blogger Templates