Re: funny article

Jan Hidders wrote:
> Costin Cozianu wrote:
> >
> > Do you mind if I ask you if this church of XML is abotu a data
model or
> > about a document model ?
>
> Hmm, I would say it's somewhere in between. The term "data exchange
> model" describes it well, I think. It's in any case certainly not
> something you should use for defining general conceptual models,
(neith
> is the relational model, but I digress) but in the near future it
will
> have all the necessary features of a data model.

I'm still unclear about how a "data exchange model" differs from a data model, and while I have a general conceptual notion of a "general conceptual model," how does that relate to the aforementioned models?

Maybe I missed this on an earlier thread. But in any event, although models can be re-commissioned for uses other than their original ones, I would think it significantly more difficult and risky than re-using a product.

> But seriously, this is largely a matter of perspective. Yes, there
are
> grants and conferences are indeed sponsored. But to a very large
extent
> this has always been true in database research, and in fact most of
that
> money is coming from the same people as before, viz., the RDBMS
> builders. This has never lead to any big problems before, and I don't

> see why it should now.

That's also largely a matter of perspective; SQL is a good counter-example, although it was led astray probably as much by bad internal decisions than by the addicts demanding their drug of choice. I'd say the vendors are trying to increase market share by jumping on XML after it acquired significant "mindshare" by virtue of its "coolness," not on any other basis.

> Moreover, since when is it bad that scientists
> are focusing on the real-world problems that industry says they are
> having? I would consider that a feature, not a bug.

Basic research is being neglected in all disciplines, though in programming the relatively small leap from incoherent concept to defective product makes this far less disciplined. I'd say scientists should focus on basic research and understanding, and that engineers should tackle real-life problems. This preference is based on results, not ivory-tower syndrome. And in any event, research on XML isn't based on problems industry was having - it's based on industry wanting to use XML. So it's a focus on leveraging a solution, not solving a problem (except at a very low level); and I'd say that's the domain of engineering and "management," not science.

> Finally, I can
> assure you from personal experience that there is a very healthy
debate
> in the database research community about how to keep our academic
> integrity. There are lots of researchers that will give you a really
> funny look if you say that are going to work for Microsoft. :-)

And yet MS continues to hire massive numbers of smart researchers. That scares me more than any other trend in the "software industry."

> That there would be very little in terms of results is simply
complete
> nonsense. There have already been very interesting results in both
> theoretical and practical areas, and at the moment this only seems to
be
> getting better.

I'll take your word for it, but consider that getting a turd to levitate poses a number of very interesting theoretical and practical challenges to science, and yet at the end of the day you have floating feces.

I actually don't think XML is as bad as a turd, but it sure ain't good. The processes that elevated it to some mutant variety of a "metalingua franca," though, is disturbing in the extreme.

> Especially, there is some very interesting interaction
> going in between the programming language community and the database
> community which is leading to very new solutions and addressing
problems
> that weren't getting much attention in the past.

That's a good thing, to be sure.

> I've been doing some
> research myself on query optimization and it is very interesting to
see
> how differently the two communities tend to approach the same
problem.

> > I mean a modest software engineer like me, even if I was
brainwashed by
> > XML propaganda, I wouldn't be able to use much in the way of
building
> > systems. That is after so many years of hype. That is contrast
with,
> > say, SQL, which inspite of the theoretical problems, still makes
the
> > world go round in many places.
>
> In terms of publishing formats, data exchange and file formats XML
has
> already made a lot of things much easier than they were and is in
that
> sense already making parts of the world go round right now.

I don't think so - I think XML just happened to be a solution that was being pushed at the time that other technologies and various industries were pushing standardized integration, plus it had enough pedigree (*ML) to fend off the curmudgeons. It slipped in the back door of the club just as the doorman turned to take a leak in the alley, and before the heavy crowds hit.

> But if the systems you build don't involve that,

What, exactly, do you mean by "that"? "That" is the critical question.

> then nobody in my church is
> claiming that you should use XML anyway.

Maybe not the church elders, but mobs of fecund, undereducated red-state reconstructionists (unrestrained by book-learnin') are.

> From the database perspective one cannot really make a judgement
until
> XML as a data model is truly and well there, and things have only
just
> begun to take shape.

Pardon me if I'll continue to be skeptical of a sorta-model that arose from document markup syntax and is trying to graft on structure, semantics, and queries after the fact. That strikes me as the antithesis of model.

> The essential component, a query language, is not
> even a finished standard yet and query optimization research and
other
> typical database subjects (concurrency, integrity, et cetera) are
still
> very much in their infancy.

What difference does query optimization really make to the model? Yes, I know there's a huge practical implication there, but a query language and query optimization do not a model make. The apparent conceptual underpinnings of XML, with references to elements and nodes and paths and sections and such, are byzantine. Unless I just haven't read the right intro to the topic... even Wadler's, while head and shoulders above many of the others, is horribly... ungrounded? Unjustified? It's much like reading an article of faith, at least to me.

• erk