Subject: Re: [jats-list] PLOS blog about relative merits of XML (JATS) and HTML in workflows From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:36:48 -0400 |
Hi, I love this blog post and this question. It is an excellent question and very well-posed. As an XML/XSLT practitioner, one might expect me (I might expect myself) to be threatened by the suggestion that XML (and by implication XSLT with it) are soon to obsolesce next to HTML5/CSS/Javascript/Markdown. But the more I think about it, the more I feel like Bre'r Rabbit in the story. "Don't throw me into that briar patch!" The thing is, I don't really do XML/XSLT. They're just tools I use. What I really do is data modeling and transformation. In the world Molly Sharp describes -- markdown facing authors, HTML5 to clients -- there will be just as much data modeling and transformation as ever. It's true there may not be as many boring transformations to code and maintain. I actually welcome this, having written enough stylesheets turning my 'para' element into your 'p' element. But this by itself doesn't go very far to address the long-term challenges of design and development. Most especially, it doesn't, in itself, take care of all the things that HTML5 (powerful and fun though it may be) doesn't take care of out of the box, the things now being modeled (in the web space) using microformats, RDF, home-grown semantic applications of CSS, what have you. Designing, building and managing the systems that exploit these capabilities, not only to enable new networked applications (for which stable interchange formats are a necessity) but also newly differentiating features, is a growth industry -- Ms Sharp is only pointing the way here, she didn't make it up. Yet this work -- one might call it the work of aligning the processing semantics of the machine with the formal semantics of human purposes and concepts, making the networked computer more than a platform for exchange of information scraped from elsewhere, indeed an expressive instrument in its own right -- is exactly what developers of XML systems and SGML systems before them have been doing all along. Not all of us, to be sure, and much interesting work in this area has happened outside XML as well. But in my experience, this is what most XML people do and want to do, and XML has been only a serviceable means to this end, not an end in itself, for us. We *like* CSS, and even HTML of whatever flavor, when it is done right and serves the purpose, and we always have. (Notwithstanding what sorts of grumbling you may have heard.) This work will still go on and indeed we can hope that the next generation of web technologies will accelerate, not hinder it. There will be many opportunities for fun, interesting, meaningful and profitable information modeling, mapping, transformation and reflection. My own suspicion is that even if XML-based systems are not visibly at the forefront of all this, they will continue to be used, at least by the most creative and innovative, in back. I already know more than one outfit for whom an XML-based information processing chain is something of a secret weapon, which they are just as happy not publicizing, and don't see a replacement for in web technologies. So rather than answer the question, exactly, I would like to reframe it a bit. To an extent I think the conclusion is based on the premise. "If XML is being used as an interchange format only" then by definition it has no other use. I would also ask: * What are you interested in accomplishing and how might it go beyond publishing and interchanging data? * In particular, are you concerned (or interested) in information retrieval and organization, in long-term archiving, in experimenting with the media or the processes, or in interpretation and analysis? Or are you willing to let others take care of these for you (since it's intellectually challenging and potentially expensive work, which can be outsourced to experts)? * Do you plan to be innovative, and where will your innovation focus? If your answers are "Not much", "No, it's fine for me to contract others to save my work for me and to lead development of the next generation of processes, tools and techniques", and "No, I'm not an innovator or early adopter, I'd rather buy the solution at the store", then maybe you'll soon be moving into HTML5 (with a back end built for it) and eventually to whatever succeeds it. (If you're lucky you won't even much spend time on XML and its extra overhead. When necessary, you'll contract others to make it for you.) There's a place for Wordpress and everything like it. However, if your answers are that do you have other needs and interests, you look forward to innovating, and you also feel it's right for you to invest in capabilities aiming at longer-term strategic objectives, and not only focus on the immediate horizon, then I expect you'll have uses for XML along with all these other things for the foreseeable future. At the very least, you'll understand and respect it, its capabilities and principles, and what it teaches about abstraction and layering. (Or you may find your lunch being eaten by someone who does.) Like any other powerful thing, XML can be badly designed or poorly fitted. There aren't easy answers here and there never have been. You might think of an XML-based format (or at any rate one you didn't design yourself) as being like pre-fab housing: at best utilitarian, and rarely attractive, and I might agree that depending on what you are doing with it, you might be right. But to me, XML and its supporting technologies are more like power tools for making any kind of information you like. Cheers, Wendell http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/brer_rabbit_meets_a_tar_baby.htm l On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Sheila M. Morrissey <Sheila.Morrissey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apologies for cross-posting, but I think this might be of interest to both of these lists. > > Molly Sharp, newly appointed product manager for content management at PLOS, has this post on the newly-created PLOS technology blog. > > http://blogs.plos.org/tech/structured-documents-for-science-jats-xml-as-canon ical-content-format/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+plos%2Fblogs%2Fmain+%28Blogs+-+Main%29 > > Her query > If XML is being used as an interchange format only, what do we gain from moving the XML piece of the workflow any further upstream from final delivery? > > Would be very interested in thoughts from members of these two lists. > > Sheila M. Morrissey > Senior Research Developer > ITHAKA > 100 Campus Drive > Suite 100 > Princeton NJ 08540 > 609-986-2221 > sheila.morrissey@xxxxxxxxxx > > ITHAKA (www.ithaka.org) is a not-for-profit organization that helps the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. We provide innovative services that benefit higher education, including Ithaka S+R, JSTOR, and Portico. > -- Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com XML | XSLT | electronic publishing Eat Your Vegetables _____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[jats-list] PLOS blog about relativ, Sheila M. Morrissey | Thread | [jats-list] Interesting thread on e, Maloney, Christopher |
[jats-list] PLOS blog about relativ, Sheila M. Morrissey | Date | [jats-list] Interesting thread on e, Maloney, Christopher |
Month |