[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xml-dev
Subject:    [xml-dev] Four fine text-based data formats ... liberate yourself from one (silo) data format
From:       "Costello, Roger L." <costello () mitre ! org>
Date:       2013-03-24 12:54:17
Message-ID: B5FEE00B53CF054AA8439027E8FE17751EF43053 () IMCMBX04 ! MITRE ! ORG
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Folks,

Here are four fine text-based data formats. There are all well supported. 

1. XML: obviously you know about this data format and its support.

2. JSON: data that is in this format can be readily queried and manipulated in a \
JavaScript program, and support for JavaScript is growing at a breathtaking rate. \
From Simon St. Laurent: There are also piles of public APIs using JSON.  Programmable \
Web and similar places keep showing growth in JSON-based APIs.  See, for example:

http://blog.programmableweb.com/2012/12/17/leading-apis-say-bye-xml-in-new-versions/ 

3. CSV: data in the form of comma-separated-values (CSV) can be readily queried and \
manipulated in Excel. There are many tools that support CSV, here's one from Google:

http://code.google.com/p/csvfix/ 

4. Plain text: of all the data formats, this one is by far the most widely supported. \
Every computer on the planet has at least one text editor (probably several). There \
are many, many powerful tools, such as vi and emacs, that can readily query and \
manipulate plain text files. 

Which data format is best? They are all fine; each has advantages and disadvantages.

Can we interoperate when data is in different formats? Yes! David Lee's tool, xmlsh \
[1], allows conversion from XML to JSON and vice versa; from XML to CSV and vice \
versa.

What about semantics; is one data format semantically richer than another? No! All of \
the data formats are just syntax. Semantics must be applied to the syntax. How are \
semantics applied to syntax? Easy, write a software program that does something when \
it sees certain syntax. The software gives life to the syntax - it gives semantics to \
the syntax.

Shouldn't we define standards - using a particular data format - for data exchanges? \
No! Define standards at the semantic level, not the syntax level. Let everyone use \
their own syntax. Convert syntax where necessary (see David Lee's tool). From Simon \
St. Laurent: As it turns out, the world needs infinitely more formats for private \
(and internal) data interchange than it needs standards for universal interchange.  \
Most of XML's advantages for creating such standards, most notably its endless \
obsession with schemas, turn out to be dead weight for private interchange \
applications.

Comments?

/Roger

[1] David Lee's tool, xmlsh, may be found here: http://www.xmlsh.org/HomePage 



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]