[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: xml-dev
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RE: XML Turing test
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev () gmail ! com>
Date: 2023-02-14 23:49:45
Message-ID: CAK4KnZcnDo=kBtasqOZsGf1VLV4wk+XiU6eMYSNgOEhLx=HXrQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
> Conclusion: it doesn't matter how you map one XML to another. If they
both elicit the same response in applications, then the mapping is
correct/equivalent. By definition.
> Do you agree?
Could we say they are "entangled" as in quantum physics? 😆😆😆
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:56 AM Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> An engineer mapped this XML form:
>
> <Document>
> <Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> to this XML form:
>
> <Document>
> <Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> That's a bizarre mapping, right?
>
> Let's not be so quick to judge.
>
> The allowable values of Pencil_Manufacturer are: Staedtler, Faber, and
> Camlin.
>
> The allowable values of Umbrella_Manufacturer are: Totes, Pogessi, and
> Dynateck.
>
> The engineer mapped the values as follows:
>
> Staedtler --> Totes
> Faber --> Pogessi
> Camlin --> Dynateck
>
> Question: Is that a correct mapping? Are the two forms equivalent?
>
> It seems preposterous to even consider the two forms as equivalent. After
> all, how can a document containing data about pencil manufacturers be
> equivalent to a document containing data about umbrella manufacturers?
>
> Possibly it's not so preposterous.
>
> What does it mean for two forms to be equivalent? Certainly they are not
> equivalent with regard to string comparison:
>
> "pencil-manufacterer" != "umbrella-manufacturer"
>
> How about semantic equivalence? Intuitively we all know that pencils are
> not the same as umbrellas.
>
> And yet, the applications that process the two forms produce the same
> output. In my example I said that both applications output 1, 2, 3, but the
> output could be something far more complex, such as outputs that control
> the flight of an aircraft.
>
> If this form:
>
> <Document>
> <Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> and this form:
>
> <Document>
> <Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer>
> </Document>
>
> are input into an aircraft's Flight Management System (FMS) and both
> result in the aircraft flying the same way, are the two forms equivalent?
>
> From the perspective of how they influence the application (aircraft FMS)
> they are the same.
>
> From the perspective of semantics they are different.
>
> From the perspective of syntax they are different.
>
> Conclusion: it doesn't matter how you map one XML to another. If they both
> elicit the same response in applications, then the mapping is
> correct/equivalent. By definition.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> /Roger
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal">> Conclusion: it doesn't matter \
how you map one XML to another. If they both elicit the same response in \
applications, then the mapping is correct/equivalent. By \
definition.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">> Do you agree?</p><br>Could we \
say they are "entangled" as in quantum physics? \
😆😆😆</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On \
Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:56 AM Roger L Costello <<a \
href="mailto:costello@mitre.org">costello@mitre.org</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
class="msg-1448242891890613394">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_-1448242891890613394WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Hi Folks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">An engineer mapped this XML \
form:<u></u><u></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><Document><br>
<Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer><br>
</Document><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">to this XML \
form:<u></u><u></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><Document><br>
<Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer><br>
</Document><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That's a bizarre mapping, right?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let's not be so quick to judge.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The allowable values of Pencil_Manufacturer are: Staedtler, \
Faber, and Camlin.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The allowable values of \
Umbrella_Manufacturer are: Totes, Pogessi, and Dynateck.<u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal">The engineer mapped the values as follows:<u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal">Staedtler --> Totes<br> Faber --> Pogessi<br>
Camlin --> Dynateck<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Question: <span style="color:black">Is that a correct mapping? \
Are the two forms equivalent?<u></u><u></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="color:black">It seems preposterous to even consider the two forms as \
equivalent. After all, how can a document containing data about pencil manufacturers \
be equivalent to a document containing data about umbrella manufacturers? \
<u></u><u></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Possibly it's not so \
preposterous.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What does it mean for two forms \
to be equivalent? Certainly they are not equivalent with regard to string comparison: \
<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">"pencil-manufacterer" != \
"umbrella-manufacturer"<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">How about semantic \
equivalence? Intuitively we all know that pencils are not the same as \
umbrellas.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And yet, the applications that \
process the two forms produce the same output. In my example I said that both \
applications output 1, 2, 3, but the output could be something far more complex, such \
as outputs that control the flight of an aircraft. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this form:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><Document><br>
<Pencil_Manufacturer>______</Pencil_Manufacturer><br>
</Document><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and this form:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><Document><br>
<Umbrella_Manufacturer>______</Umbrella_Manufacturer><br>
</Document><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">are input into an aircraft's Flight Management System (FMS) and \
both result in the aircraft flying the same way, are the two forms \
equivalent?<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">From the perspective of how they \
influence the application (aircraft FMS) they are the same.<u></u><u></u></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal">From the perspective of semantics they are \
different.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">From the perspective of syntax they \
are different.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Conclusion: it doesn't matter \
how you map one XML to another. If they both elicit the same response in \
applications, then the mapping is correct/equivalent. By \
definition.<u></u><u></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Do you agree?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">/Roger<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic