Three Myths of XML
by Kendall Grant Clark
|
Pages: 1, 2, 3
3. XML is the Dog, Not the Tail
[M]achine-readable information would give the public much more power and add accountability to the political process. -- Alan Kotok, "Can XML Help Write the Law?"
The last myth I want to discuss applies to every kind of technology, including XML. The myth is that institutional and social structures reflect, or are determined by, the possibilities of computer technology, so that a radical change in the latter will mean a radical change in the former.
Computer technology reflects institutional and social structures far more often than it changes them. Technology is only possible within the context of the social and political practices that create, maintain, and extend it; including social and political relations that dictate public funding of, and private profit-taking from, technology. The social and political practices that constitute social institutions are the limits within which technology can mean or be anything at all.
The relationship is actually more reciprocal and dynamic than that. Technology can give rise to new social practices, but only to those that the larger social framework can accommodate. Technology alone cannot make a revolution.
Taking technology to be independent or determinative of the social context within which it always already operates is to misjudge its possible, practical alliances and uses. The powers-that-be always have the newest, best, fastest, most powerful stuff, and they always have more of it than anyone else. Notwithstanding an even sharing of technology by all sides, any tool can be used to impede social change as well as to foster it. Even if XML had some property especially conducive of citizen empowerment and social change, as propounders of the first two myths suggest, the forces that oppose such empowerment and change are free to use it too. Technology often amounts to a draw in social struggle. Like every other human tool, XML isn't immune to abuse; it's often both a help and a harm.
Most enthusiastic proponents of XML have the cart before the horse or, to mix metaphors, they have the tail, XML, wagging the dog, society and social possibility. Empowering citizens or reforming a wayward, corrupt political process will always be less about the technology in question and more about real-world political and social organizing and the creation and maintenance of truly democratic social practices and institutions. Those have always been and will continue to be the real engine of liberating social change.
Been a victim of "magical thinking" about XML? Or do you think that XML really can change the world for better? Comment in our forum.
(* You must be a member of XML.com to use this feature.)
Comment on this Article
| Titles Only | Titles Only | Newest First |
- True!
2001-07-22 09:03:18 Pallavi Patil [Reply]
A long awaited and very introspective article.
Made really good reading!
- XML cures cancer! (Its just a protocol)
2001-06-28 11:57:13 William Childers [Reply]
I agree with what you say, although I think XML is a very exciting development. I believed it’s similar to and as important as TCP/IP. It’s a transport mechanism for information. It reduces communication friction so it can flow more freely.
Like TCP/IP, it’s not necessarily the best solution, but it works and it is free for everyone to use. TCP/IP beat SNA and DECNet because it worked reasonably well, was easily available and wasn't proprietary. OSI, I guess is like SGML, open, but too complicated for 90% of what we want to do.
Because XML standards are open, we see a proliferation of tools becoming available to use and create it and support for its use being built into products. That makes it easier for us all to get started than it has been trying to convince each other to adopt our own inventions.
XML Schema is possibly the most important part of XML because we finally have a meta-data language that is both open and useful in automated systems. If I can write it, you can read it and process to it. Of course, without a DOMlet, I still might not know what the tags really mean.
Naturally, there will be vendors trying to patent or copyright schemas or xsl tricks, and trying to protect their schemas by obfuscating them. XML makes communication easier, but we still have to decide if, when and what we convey.
I wonder why there aren’t as many articles and interest groups devoted to how we can use XML to better control or enslave people or pry into their affairs? It must be that XML brings us all closer to God. ;)
- Schemas are Magical
2001-06-21 10:59:07 Robert Kottke [Reply]
XML and schemas are magical in that they can be used to organize our thinking on a subject. Some people can do it in creating an XML DTD, a schema, an outline or using index cards. When it happens, it seems magical. Is it magical for anyone other than the developer? I cannot tell.
- A easy Standard to Share common Business Perceptions
2001-06-20 06:08:56 Manish Bhatnagar [Reply]
I have been in touch of XML for 2 years or so.I personally feel XML is not a requirement but definitely it's a convenience , which one should opt for.developing business communication standards using XML eases the task and gives an opportunity to use technology(XML) that is freely available and easy to use.
- XML revolution??
2001-06-17 07:51:01 shankaran krishnaswamy [Reply]
Too good, that the term revolution became a marketing catch phrase and part of rhetoric than reality.
Industrial revolution was more a evolution - though fast!!
French revolution - Americans have to rescue them twice - so they hate Americans so much - they do the opposite of American foreign policy always..
October revolution :) :) :)
Islamic Revolution (: (: (:
While I don't buy into a XML revolution evolution, XML can possibly "evolve" into a basic link between human systems.
- XML Not a technology ??
2001-06-17 07:08:46 shankaran krishnaswamy [Reply]
>And one could argue (strongly) that any
>individual database format (Oracle data files,
>Mysql data files, etc., etc.) is
>_technologically_ superior to XML for data
>exchange, especially considering the much
>stronger typing allowed.
yeah, right I could very well process the control and header blocks of Oracle data files and all those binary weirdos!!
If you atleast consider computer data formatting as a technology, XML is the first improvisation of that available openly and freely for that purpose, which somebody could use in a timely manner.
XML is the one close to WYSWYG of all data formatting, that on an eye ball look of it , the data can be locally understood partially atleast.
I don't know if the Author has looked at RDF specs, i.e the machine understandable Vs machine readable.
It is NOT to argue that Government activities can be abstracted into a schema of sorts. But it could very well become that, what cannot be abstracted is too costly to be practised. Merely on the basis of COST , a lot of junk that goes on in government could get "Naturally Selected OUT" .
Well I could be talking in the scale of 100s of years.
But the way the Author scoffs at privatisation efforts , makes me think that he is one those that is fond of Government and its complexities.
Half of what is going there is wasteful activity isn't it?
Already there are calls for briging a "PLAIN ENGLISH" amendment to the constitution. Which means many lawyers will be out of business??
Yeah, what cannot be abstracted into a schema will GO OUT of practice :) :) :) LOL fun...
- Pound Pipe Caret Tilde Splat
2001-06-15 11:21:45 Ed Welsh [Reply]
If you've spent time parsing idiosyncratically delimited text files, XML truly is magical. I agree with Clark's main points. However, much of the hype over XML is directed at programmers, and some of this hype makes sense. The government's use of SGML may not have revolutionized institutions, but when a programmer is asked to post an ancient cache of documents in HTML or PDF, it should be a snap; thanks to the richness and "transformability" of SGML.
While debunking the myths, keep in mind the realistic goals of standardized markup in general.
- No Silver Bullet
2001-06-15 06:44:27 Tim McCoy [Reply]
This article seems to use the same argument that is made in "No Silver Bullet." Do you think this is a valid point? Would it be useful to bring in some of the points of "No Silver Bullet" since many of your readers are hopefully familiar with the article? How about with the theisis of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
- Developers as Magicians
2001-06-15 05:43:29 Randy Grenier [Reply]
I agree with the commentary on "magical thinking". As a developer, I have been a victim of such thinking of managers and/or clients who expect me to do wonders with my magical computer powers and devolop their wish lists and solve all their business problems within a few days.
I believe that the XML family of technologies will become increasingly important, but I dread the expectations of magic that I will probably be asked to perform with all-powerful XML.
Randy Grenier
Waltham, MA
- making myths reality
2001-06-15 00:39:39 bryan rasmussen [Reply]
xml might a footsoldier in the computing revolution, which like most revolutions is all about the supercedance of old social classes by new rising ones. I'm sure we've all read articles about techies exerting too much control over society by their understanding of technology, written by members of older social classes who feel their position threatened by incomprehension of the standards. As xml moves into a document format for law, for example, it might not be revolutionary in helping anybody access information anytime, but it will be revolutionary in putting the technically competent on a better competing social level with lawyers, the group that in the last century has had the most power.
As a technology for helping the poor and downtrodden it might very well enable that as well, however most developers create applications for their social class, and for large governing bodies or corporations, if you want to end poverty and evil dictators you have to start thinking of the killer xml-app that helps achieve that laudable goal. As a matter of fact I'm working on a standard that might help someways towards that, should be ready in november.:)
- Magical Thinking
2001-06-14 12:05:25 Matt Helmick [Reply]
When I started to implement an XML-based solution for a web site, however, it occured to me that "Gee, a relational database would be much easier to implement and more efficient."
XML has its applications, but it is no panacea for data storage and transfer.
- Much needed dose of reality
2001-06-14 11:45:46 Gordon Benett [Reply]
One of the hard-won epiphanies of my engineering career is that technology is never context-free. Most innovation, as Mr. Nobel showed, has to do with blowing things up; but sometimes technology trickles into the marketplace, where it gets a chance to leaven the GNP. The revolutionary things about most technologies is the way they scar the lexicon with marketing lingo.
Saying XML is revolutionary is like saying ASCII is revolutionary. The analogy goes deep, because XML *is* ASCII promoted from the character- to the block-level. And in fact, ASCII *was* revolutionary in the important but narrow sense that a standard symbol system potentiates leaps in text processing. XML potentiates parallel leaps for document and data processing. The rest is hype.
Kendall Clark's article points an unswerving finger at the unclothed emperor. Phrases like "Semantic Web" and "government-wide XML vocabulary," can't disguise the fact that forty years of AI research and 200 years of epistemological research have failed to produce anything resembling schemas for human discourse. In addition to Eco I suggest fans of the Semantic Web read the Dreyfus brothers -- e.g., "What Computers Can't Do" -- for a sobering counter-argument.
Standards need standards-bearers, but technologists need to balance enthusiasm with skepticism if they hope to build things that don't blow up. Clark isn't some sort of Luddite. He's debunking magical thinking -- the enemy of scientific revolution. All this and he's funny, too. We're lucky to have him.
- But XML is not a technology...
2001-06-14 09:48:33 Michael Lazzaro [Reply]
I think where many people may be getting confused (especially the marketeers that must sell XML-based products) is that XML is not really a "technology". It's not like, say, a microchip that allows problems to be solved that couldn't (easily) be solved before. (Or even, say, a sandwich, which suddenly allows you to take your ham and cheese everywhere.) It's just a data format, and one that may or may not be the best for any particular use.
There is, fundamentally and provably, no technology enabled by XML that could not also be solved by using any other data format. There is no (technical) reason why formats such as SGML, RTF, or even Microsoft Word n.n could not be used to solve represent the same textual data, in much the same way. And one could argue (strongly) that any individual database format (Oracle data files, Mysql data files, etc., etc.) is _technologically_ superior to XML for data exchange, especially considering the much stronger typing allowed.
What XML has -- what it offers that can't be as easily done using these other tools -- is a standard syntax that is (a) not owned by any one company, not tied to any one product or industry, and is publicly defined so that anyone can use and implement it, and (b) simple and textual, that is, inspectable by human developers with a minimal set of tools. But that's it.
Of course, the mere fact of having a standard that, through it's simplicity and openness, has become practically omnipresent _is_ of immense utility, but only for the thing it was designed for; data exchange between any implementing parties. That's a pretty good thing, but it's hard to make a marketing case for a business based on that, so we're stuck with the typical cry of "business revolution", for now. (Has there ever been any industry that has not been in a state of "revolution", according to it's evangelists?)
The most dangerous thing facing any standard is it's own evangelists who -- if they promise things that can't actually be delivered -- doom the standard to being tossed into the "failure" pile, for not living up to their absurd claims.
- You're too pessimistic about technology
2001-06-14 08:42:06 Frank Richards [Reply]
It's only remotely relevant to the article, but I think your contention that technology can't cause a social revolution is only technically true. That is, while I agree that no magic of technology will ever end poverty and bring peace in 90 days, I submit that on a generational time scale, technology can change entire social structures, and/or cause them to respond to 'third influences' in ways that were otherwise impossible.
Examples: The stirrup and the feudal system. Armor sure helped the rich, but if they could be pushed off their horses, the peasants could mob them....
Guns and no more feudal system.
Calvinism and the printing press. without the printing press, Luther maybe, but no way Calvin.
Railroads, telegraphs and continental republics.
Again, empires yes, but the US, Canada, Australia simply weren't possible without the 'members' being able to get home for vacations and election campaigns. Otherwise you just have appointed governors.
And then there's the whole 'Age of Exploration' thing...
Frank
- HumanMarkup Initiative and XML
2001-06-13 23:40:44 Ranjeeth Thunga [Reply]
The mission of HumanMarkup is sensible and noble.
We are embedding human psychological, cultural, social, political, and physical characteristics within data. This will increase the fidelity of the human communications process. When this information isn't on hand, there is potential for misunderstanding. All of us can personally relate to this.
This concept is very straightforward. The potential applications of HumanMarkup include Virtual Reality, Discussion, Psychotherapy, and Art. HumanML has multiple possible uses, ranging from the obvious to the ambitious.
------------------------------------
Why would we stand by some of our more amibitious goals? Because current channels of human communications are demonstrably ineffective, and the status quo is unacceptable.
Improving the human relations process is the most important effort worth working towards. This remains so, regardless of perception of this effort at any given time, and regardless of the difficulty involved.
You are right to be cautious of ideals that are beyond the current scope. It is important to keep our vision grounded. Of course, goals that do stretch beyond the mundane will always be considered magical. There will always be the critics, as there will always be revolutionaries. Television, the Atom Bomb, space travel, and the World Wide Web were all considered mythical as well, at some day and age.
The members of this four month old project have been working extremely hard to provide robust, well-thought out ideas in laying out these standards. We are looking at incorporating many of upcoming XML technologies to build the platform, to ensure the language is robust, advanced, and fully extensible.
------------------------------------
We want to invite any individuals or organizations interested in sharing human cultural, social, psychological paradigms (as well as XML technical experience) to join these efforts.
At this point, we are in the process of establishing a relationship with various agencies within the UN and US State Department. Further, we are in the process of consolidating our efforts, and hope to form an official OASIS Technical Committee within a month.
Thanks for bringing up the topics in your article. Take care,
-----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
HumanMarkup Coordinator
rkthunga@humanmarkup.org
Join our discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup
-----------
PS:
Question: Why does XML have more potential than SGML?
Answer: The Internet.
PS2: I will take a look at Umberto Eco's book...I am sure it will help us dodge possible stumbling blocks.
PS3: Your points on myth3 are very interesting. Certainly noted.
=====================
