Dear XForms Users and Steven, Forgive me for missing to include the complete article at my earlier message (without other parts of it) while I gave its link address... Regard, Guntur Wiseno Putra Pada Rabu, 16 Oktober 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> menulis: > Dear XFormsUsersvand Steven , > > > As an example it is mentioned how XForms is made to facilitate mappings > (among others Steven Pamberton, "Declarative Applications" mentioned > above): I finded what is supposedly an interesting article "Maps for the > Future" by C D'Allessandro-Scarpari discussing a book by J. Pickeks, "A > History of Spaces. Cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-coded world", > 2003. > > Beginning by reasoning such a relation between Geography, geographers, and > map --thus existing research and reflections on map-- D'Alessandro-Scarpari > identified a uniqe perspective proposed by the book which was among others > an investigation about spatial consequences of technological changes. > > The book was said about the processes of map-making and map-using issues. > The book interpret geography as an action of delimitation constructing > objects: the technical, social, and spatial changes affecting > cartographies, express the need for such discourses on ethics of practices > and cartographic goals. > > To the present situation named globalization, the book concerned with the > matter of mapping the world at any scale, rethinking theory and methods of > "globalized sites" The book suggested a way to work on a kind of > cartography: > > "For the author the technology is just an input for future changes: > map-making and map-using processes are more deeply transformed by the > social and spatial dynamics". > > Such a concern given to the collectives involved in every particular > space: a geography of collectives... > > https://www.espacestemps.net/articles/maps-for-the-future/ > > > > Maps for the future.John Pickles, *A History of Spaces. Cartographic > reason, mapping and the geo-coded world*, 2003.Cristina > D’Alessandro-Scarpari > <https://www.espacestemps.net/auteurs/cristina-drsquoalessandro-scarpari/> > > [image: Image1]Geographers’ relations with maps have a long story of > attraction and repulsion. The map has always fascinated Geographers (even > before the institutionalization of the discipline) as a powerful tool, able > to demarcate territories, to produce different visions of them and to > transform them by the actions they may cause or influence. Sometimes for > strategic reasons Geographers have also denigrated cartography as a > secondary and technical form of knowledge, a tool merely for understanding > and representing spaces. At the present time the production of maps is > becoming at the same time easier (because of the technological advances > available today for making maps) and more complex (because of the high > complexity of spatial contemporary dynamics). Anyone can buy software and > make his/her own maps and those maps can be constantly updated. If one can > visualize them from different points of view (adding or removing layers of > data and changing combinations); then the delineated territories are not as > stable as they were in the past. Spaces, networks and borders are submitted > to multiple rapid social processes at different scales and maps show their > limits representing this complexity. > > The existing research and reflections about maps and cartography can > roughly be divided into two groups. On one hand, is the historical enquiry > about the role of maps: David Woodward, Franco Farinelli and Christian > Jacob are three notable examples of this historical effort. On the other > hand, there are major contributions concerned by the graphic semiology and > semiotic of maps: Emanuela Casti or Jacques Bertin contributed to the > explanations of what maps show and how they produce spatial knowledge. In a > different way both these traditions are interested in the links between > maps and politics at the local, national or international levels. The > originality of this book is certainly not in underlining the central role > played by maps in building empires: nevertheless, *A History of Spaces*brings > something unquestionably new in the way geographers study maps and the > processes of map-making and map-using. Novelties exist on at least three > levels: the most visible aspect is the capacity to cross a geographical > analysis with a deep philosophical background; John Pickles does not limit > his views to conventional mapping but is concerned also with cyber-maps and > digital spatial representations; lastly the author suggests an exciting > intellectual and scientific challenge for future practices of mapping. > > A diversity of approaches in his intellectual background gives Pickles a > unique perspective by combining a deep philosophical interest, an opening > to Western European classical knowledge and to contemporary scientific > productions, a geographical approach to globalization issues and also to > post-communist fragmentation in Eastern Europe, environmental concerns, > African experience and an investigation of spatial consequences of > technological changes. John Pickles can be broadly defined as a cultural > and social geographer, interested in political and economic processes > investing territories and places, with an approach certainly influenced by > Lefebvre. Philosophically he is close to the phenomenology of Althusser but > also to Deleuze. > > *A History of Spaces* is certainly about geography and maps, but it is > mainly a questioning of the processes of map-making and of map-using > issues, the dynamics of production being more important than the result > itself. If one may be tempted to state that the histories of spaces are > limited in this book, then the social and spatial aspects linked to > cartography are constantly present. The text is divided into five parts. > After an introduction, the second part focuses on the deconstruction of > maps, in a double technical and social sense: contesting the crisis of > representation it criticizes cartographic reason and taking into account > the social practices it develops a situated pragmatic. The third part is > about mapping and political territories in the modern period and it > introduces the following part, about cyber-empires in the contemporary > digital maps. The last part, the fifth, discusses the counter-mapping and > the maps of future. > > The 233 pages of this book present an important number of figures, 46 > black and white illustrations more precisely. But contrary to what one can > expect in a book about mapping and spaces, the majority of these figures > are drawings (24). With the reproduction of recent and old maps one is able > to find also paintings and pictures. In spite of the variety of > illustrations and of their importance in the text, there is no color in the > book, except for the monochromatic blue cover, the image representing a > French painting showing the attempt to adjust the technique of perspective. > Maps, then, are not always the most efficient tool for representing spaces. > > What is geography if it is not the drawing and interpreting of a line? > This is the question developed as an introduction in Part I. From its Greek > etymology, *geo-graphy* indicates the drawing of the world, but for the > author this action of delimitation creates new objects. Following Jean > Baudrillard, for Pickles (from Part I and throughout the entire book) maps > precede territory; they inscribe boundaries and construct objects that in > turn become our realities: instead of representing the territory, they > produce it. Map-making and map-using are described as individual and social > processes at the same time: the production of maps is not only a technical > act, but above all an interpretative action, in which the result conveys > also the author’s intentions, conditions and values. Nevertheless, maps are > made because of the needs of particular social situations, to fulfil a > particular action (Part III gives some political and economic examples). > > From this perspective the technical, social and spatial changes affecting > cartography cannot be reduced to the supposed ‘crisis of representation’. > This expression (questioned in Part II) is for the author a way to express > the need for a debate about the ethics of practices and cartographic goals. > As the crisis of representation develops, the recent technological > innovations are more a way to interrogate future social transformations > than an object of study. New technologies of mapping and new uses for maps > have accompanied the reworking and recoding of social life. Consumers for > these new products and practices have been produced and new mapping > metaphors have been deployed to promote the penetration of these > technologies into everyday life. With imaging and visualizing technologies, > the goal of analytical abstraction and purification can be accomplished in > ways that create abstract spaces of transparent objects. > > We have the tools for rendering the world-as-picture in the 21st century, > but the territories, submitted to globalization, are not as easily marked > and separated as in the past. Globalization challenges how we map the world > at any scale, but particularly it calls for rethinking theory and methods > about ‘globalized sites’. John Pickles notices that we need new > cartographies, carrying new pragmatics of map-making and map using. These > new cartographies might produce mappings that speak their situated and > selective interests and that record their metadata and political > commitments. But these cartographies also need a new openness for producing > dialectical, dynamic and metaphorical images; they must be able to > integrate rhizomatic spaces (rhizome being used according to Deleuze and > Guattari), between local and global, concrete and abstract (Deleuze and > Guattari, 1983), by the process that Felix Guattari calls the fabrication > of individual and collective assemblages of enunciation. > > At the end of the book Pickles suggests an interesting way to work on a > new kind of cartography. ‘It may be possible to develop new cartographies > and geographies only by changing the way we think about the cartographies > we have’ (p. 194). For the author the technology is just an input for > future changes: map-making and map-using processes are more deeply > transformed by the social and spatial dynamics. Isn’t that an interesting > lesson for the actual gis concerns about production, use and limits of > this technology’ > > But the entire book may also be interpreted as an invitation to > geographers to shift their gaze from the gis technology to the > collectives involved in every particular case. ‘These collectives are all > alike, as I have said, in that they distribute both what will later, after > stabilization, become elements of Nature and elements of the social world. > No one has ever heard of a collective that did not mobilize heaven and > earth in its composition, along with bodies and souls, property and laws, > gods and ancestors, powers and beliefs, beasts and fictional beings’ > (Latour, 1993, p. 107). gis permit to visualize and study collectives of > humans and non-humans: for the writer of these lines the new geographies > mentioned by Pickles are precisely the geography of these collectives > (linked to the new cartographies). This alternative mapping, or > counter-mapping, is a public participation in the mapping process, where > the public is not only human, but constituted by collectives. > > > > Regard, > Guntur Wiseno Putra > > Pada Selasa, 15 Oktober 2019, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> > menulis: > >> The word 'model' in XForms refers back to the model-view-controller (MVC) >> paradigm that originally appeared in Smalltalk. However, in XForms the idea >> is somewhat more generalised: in MVC the relationship between model and >> view is one-way (from the model to the view) and the controller is >> responsible for the flow in the other direction. In XForms the relationship >> is two-way, with constraints and invariants achieving much of what the >> controller would have been needed for, although Events and Actions allow >> you to add your own effects where they are not supplied automatically by >> the system. >> >> In retrospect, the word Form might have been a good choice instead of >> Model, in the sense of Form and Content. >> >> Steven >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:19:53 +0200, Guntur Wiseno Putra < >> gsenopu@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear XFormsUsers and Steven, >> >> >> >> It may be inspiring: >> >> So it is about "model"...? as "the word is used in so many different ways >> in common parlance as well as in academia" (Patterson, Z., "Model", 2008: >> discussing the word in relation with social science) ...? >> >> https://www.espacestemps.net/articles/model/ >> >> Until the MarkupUK 2019 it is still said that the components of XForms >> are the model and the human interface (Steven Pemberton, "Declarative >> Applications"). >> >> https://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/Talks/2019/06-07-markup/ >> >> Regard, >> Guntur Wiseno Putra >> >> Pada Rabu, 09 Oktober 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> >> menulis: >> >>> Dear XForms Users & Steven, >>> >>> To share what may be inspiring (May we say what are below...?): >>> >>> Somewhere a city of networks, those networks of languages, ones learn on >>> how to navigate it, how to work it out by such a strategic spatial >>> planning: thus there is a multiplanar methodology... >>> >>> https://www.espacestemps.net/en/articles/strategic-navigation/ >>> >>> >>> Regard, >>> Guntur Wiseno Putra >>> >>> Pada Rabu, 02 Oktober 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> >>> menulis: >>> >>>> Dear XFormsUsers and Steven, >>>> >>>> XForms, Networks of Languages, and Architecture... >>>> >>>> >>>> As we are trying to say architecturally about "XForms" regarding >>>> with"networks of languages": may we imagine such buildings "Plan of Pope >>>> Sixtus V for Rome in Italy,1585", "Yi Yuan (Garden of Contentment) in >>>> Suzhou, China, 19th century" and "Plan for Washington D.C., USA, 1792" with >>>> their network configurations of the path (Ching, F.D.K, "Architecture: >>>> Form, Space and Order", John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007, pp. 276-277)...? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regard, >>>> Guntur Wiseno Putra >>>> >>>> Pada Rabu, 02 Oktober 2019, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> >>>> menulis: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 17:32:50 +0200, Guntur Wiseno Putra < >>>>> gsenopu@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear XForm Users and Steven, >>>>> >>>>> To share what may be inspiring: >>>>> >>>>> It is known that there are architectures of machines and systems >>>>> regarding with computing technologies: does it sound fantastic if there is >>>>> a language supporting those architectures...? --a language by which we may >>>>> work out the architectures...? --thus we may build or renovate machines and >>>>> systems using the language...? >>>>> >>>>> Of a reading, "architecture" consists elements "form", "space", and >>>>> "order": does XForm language -- together with, if there are, XSpace and >>>>> XOrder-- embody part of such an architectural programme...? --or at least >>>>> potentially...? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In XForms, the form is provided by the model, the order by the content >>>>> in the body, and the space by the CSS. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regard, >>>>> Guntur Wiseno Putra >>>>> >>>>> Pada Selasa, 01 Oktober 2019, Steven Pemberton < >>>>> steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> menulis: >>>>> >>>>>> It struck me that we should be making a collection of references to >>>>>> all papers about XForms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please reply to this message with examples you know that should be >>>>>> included. I will collect them all together. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Steven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:40:30 +0200, Steven Pemberton < >>>>>> steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> By John Boyer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contains an XForms implementation of quicksort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ABSTRACT >>>>>>> It is difficult to generally compare the succinctness of declarative >>>>>>> versus imperative programming as source code size varies. In >>>>>>> imperative programs, basic operations have constant cost, but they >>>>>>> tend to be more verbose than declarative programs, which increases >>>>>>> the potential for defects. This paper presents a novel approach for a >>>>>>> generalized comparison by transforming the problem into comparing >>>>>>> executed code size of a benchmark imperative algorithm with >>>>>>> a partially declarative variant of the same algorithm. This allows >>>>>>> input size variation to substitute for source code size variation. >>>>>>> For >>>>>>> implementation, we use a multiparadigm language called XForms >>>>>>> that contains both declarative XPath expressions and imperative >>>>>>> script actions for interacting with XML data within web and office >>>>>>> documents. A novel partially declarative variant of the quicksort is >>>>>>> presented. Amortized analysis shows that onlyO(n) imperative actions >>>>>>> are executed, so the expressive power of the declarative constructs is at >>>>>>> least Ω(logn). In general, declarative constructs can >>>>>>> have an order of magnitude expressive power advantage compared >>>>>>> with only using basic imperative operations. The performance cost >>>>>>> factor of the expressive power advantage was determined to be >>>>>>> O(log2 n) based on a novel dynamic projection from the generalized >>>>>>> tree structure of XML data to a height balanced binary tree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dl.acm.org/results.cfm?within=owners.owner%3DHOSTED& >>>>>>> srt=_score&query=10.1145%2F3342558.3345397&Go.x=0&Go.y=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >>Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 14:13:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:52 UTC