W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > October 2019

Re: On the Expressive Power of Declarative Constructs in Interactive Document Scripts

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:13:37 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKi_AEu8F1wUeCQHMf3nqcsNnZv99P37HM4rKKDVGOo7mYuEAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: XForms <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
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...

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