Week 10 Readings

Articles

Bryan, M. (1997). “An Introduction to the Extensible Markup Language (XML).” The SGML Centre. Retrieved from http://www.is-thought.co.uk/xmlintro.htm.

             M. Bryan (1997) notes a very integral facet – scrupulousness – of the XML language. While he relates the multiplicity of XML languages available, as is considered in the other readings for this week, Bryan also states that XML can transfer information about the component parts of documents to other computer systems and is malleable enough to describe any logical text structure – memos, letters, dictionaries, databases, and the like (Bryan, 1997, under “What is XML?,” para. 6). At the same time, it identifies where the change of appearance happens, where a new element begins, and what boundaries exist for each part of a document (ibid., under “The components of XML,” para. 2). Thus XML is thorough. It concentrates on the individual parts of information – providing equal attention to each cog and not skipping over different key components – and covers a wide range of text structures representing a multitude of information types. Additionally, it sets up to mark everything – its beginnings, its endings, and its limits, to name a few. Such meticulousness ensures that all information is explained and moved entirely to other computers.

 

Ogbuji, U. (2004, January 20). “A survey of XML Standards: Part 1, The core standards – a foundation for the wide world of XML.” IBM: developerWorks. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-stand1/index.html

             U. Ogbuji (2004) highlights an important factor in understanding not only his survey, but also in interpreting XML. Rather than assume that he and his users will read his article in the same way, he defines what he means by “standards” in his introduction. Ogbuji sustains “that the word itself is a bit slippery,” having multiple forms, but that he himself “follow[s] the practical approach of defining a standard as any specification that is significantly adopted by a diversity of vendors, or is recommended by a respectable, vendor-neutral organization” (Ogbuji, 2004, para. 2). According to Ogbuji, there exists no customary “language” for determining XML Standards or its related premises – that even its subject of standards remains vague if no one actively elaborated on the topic. Yet he assumes that he is taking the “practical approach” – the more logical, possibly superior method of interpretation – for defining the word. While attempting to make the concept clearer is inarguably beneficial in this context, ensuring that readers have a clearer idea on how to analyze his article, such a viewpoint remains one bias on how to read it. It is good that he provides a definition, but what he may deem as “practical” may not be so in the overarching framework on XML discussion.

            Continuing along this concept of language (albeit within XML itself), the use of namespaces offers ways to manipulate vocabulary. Namespaces themselves can assign a vocabulary marker to each XHTML element, allowing the user to differentiate elements from the host vocabulary elements which use the same names (Ogbuji, 2004, under “XML Namespaces”). Such a method is fascinating in that it links standardized languages between levels. Namespaces acknowledge the issue that sometimes the official vocabulary repeats itself, confusing the contents of the document as a whole. Thus it provides markers that follow another standardization. Although complex in practice – or, as Ogbuji notes, a controversial move that may cause more problems than it should (ibid.), it does provide a framework for viewing how different forms of standard languages interact. Thus it may not be beneficial when a person needs to use it, but it is useful for theoretical analyses.

 

Bergholz, Andre. (2000, July-August). “Extending Your Markup: An XML Tutorial.” IEEE Internet Computing: 76-79. Retrieved from http://xml.coverpages.org/BergholzTutorial.pdf.

             Out of all of the articles required for this week, I believe that A. Bergholz (2000) provides one of the clearest definitions for XML and what it does. Specifically, he asserts that XML is “a semantic language that lets you meaningfully annotate text,” making it easier for users and computers to understand (Bergholz, 2000, p. 74). This is clearer than how the “XML Tutorial” (n.d.) of W3Schools describes XML. XML annotates – making comments, marking points with more in-depth descriptions that ensures smoother computation. This particular definition is also succinct, pinpointing the key characteristics of XML that a user would need to know to differentiate it from other concepts.

            What was new for me was XSL. Bergholz (2000) introduces XSL – the Extensible Stylesheet Language – as a complex of two languages, XSL transformations (or XSLT) and XSL formatting objects/language (p. 77-78). As far as I know, I have never heard about XSL. So reading about XSL proved most informative. Specifically, users can utilize XSLT to transform XML into HTML and reformat XML documents so that a variety of XML representations are mapped onto each other (Bergholz, 2000, p. 78). XSLT, in this manner, is relatively powerful. Although it cannot change the basic nature of HTML or XML, XSLT can reform its approach and appearance contrary to their character. I don’t know whether Bergholz’s claim that XSLT especially helps electronic commerce and electronic data interchange (ibid., p. 78) is true – I don’t have the necessary background and education to decide – but the premise sounds possible; if XSLT can reformat XML into different forms, then it can provide a wider range of documents that can be read more easily.

 

“XML Tutorial.” (n.d.). w3schools.com. Retrieved from http://www.w3schools.com/xml/default.asp

            Similar to Uche Ogbuji’s article “A Survey of XML Standards: Part 1,” the “XML Tutorial” (n.d.) focuses on the manipulation of language and how users can use it. It specifically acts as a markup language, carrying data (not displaying it) and remaining self-descriptive (“XML Tutorial,” n.d., under “Introduction to XML,” “What is XML?”). Thus it has its own vocabulary, acting as a method of communication between user and computer. The Tutorial, however, argues that it “does not do anything;” it can “structure, store, and transport information” but “it is just information wrapped in tags,” needing additional software to either send, receive, or display it (ibid., “XML Does Not DO Anything”). Compared to Bergholz’s definition (Bergholz, 2000, p. 74), this definition isn’t as clear. I think I understand the basic meaning the Tutorial purports – that XML only marks up the structure and describes features, not actually commanding anything to be done – but I think that stating that it “does not do anything” confuses more than explains XML.

            The language of XML itself seems to be its own creation. It is very fertile; since the XML language does not have any predefined tags, the user can determine her own tags and document structure (“XML Tutorial,” n.d., under “Introduction to XML,” “With XML You Invent Your Own Tags”), so the number of XML language possible is limitless (ibid., under “How Can XML be Used?,” “XML is Used to Create”). As such, XML is almost alive, allowing users to create multiple languages to attain different purposes. A few rules still apply. For example, XML tags are case-sensitive (ibid., under “XML Syntax Rules,” “XML Tags are Case Sensitive”) and all attribute values have to be quoted (ibid., “XML Attribute Values”). So some limits exist, restricting the number and type of possible languages available. However, some restrictions are necessary so that XML language creation does not become too chaotic, following some basic pattern to work in practice and having an anchor in what does and doesn’t work.