W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2003

RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:44:47 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52267543@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> We disagree profoundly.  In my career I saw many ambitious API-centric
> attempts at smooth network interoperability prove to have lousy
> cost-effectiveness, including various RPC stacks, Corba, DCOM, and so
> on and so on.  The Web succeeded in many arenas where they failed, and
> one important reason is that it never subscribed to the myth of the
> interoperable data model.  If the Webarch doc is not to be used to

Whoa!  Are you getting confused about what people mean by "data model"?
RPC/DCOM interop was all about shared marshalling formats, and shared
interface definitions -- not about shared data models.  Nobody in the
DCOM/Corba/RPC worlds deals with things at the data model level.

As an example of an "interoperable data model", think of the relational
data model.  The existence of the relational data model means that I can
learn SQL and use any of a number of great database engines.  The
existence of relational data model means that I can convert my code from
using SQL Server to use MySQL with no code changes necessary --
regardless of which programming language or API (ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB) I
chose to use.

The benefits of a shared data model in the case of relational are
completely undisputable.  And the benefits of a shared semistructured
data model are already evident in enabling deployment of XPath, and will
soon be far more evident in deployment of XQuery.
Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 15:44:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT