[SCL] some explanation

[Stephen Waterbury]

Rich Morin wrote:
> At the risk of getting in WAY over my head, I'd like to make a small
> comment.  Please don't beat me up; I'm just trying to help...

This goes for me, too.  :)

> XML is rather like a glacier, slowly but inexorably pushing its way
> into the landscape.  So, I agree that any standard for the exchange
> of information should have an XML binding.

Seconded.

> ... I suspect that some of the alternate encoding formats for
> SCL are much better matches than any XML-encoded format for the way
> the information will be used in a given processing system.  It would
> therefore be rather silly to require these systems to read XML, then
> post-process an enormous set of data structures before using them.

Hearty agreement!  Lessons can be learned from the variety of
XML serialization formats defined for the ISO 10303 (STEP)
standard ... witnessing this effort has convinced me that
XML was actually invented by the ancient Babylonians.  ;)

> I'd also like to point out that XML is ONLY a serialization format.
> Trying to use XML as an alternative to an RDBMS, let alone graphical
> data structures, seems misguided, at best.

That is my perspective as well, but it is not one that is
shared by all ... ;)

> So, assuming that SCL's semantic and structural information can be
> mapped into XML (however ungracefully), do so.

Well, I have no doubt that it *can*, and must be.

> But don't make XML
> the definitive serialization format unless it matches your needs.

Or to be more general:  don't let a specific serialization format
influence the abstract syntax (as can happen with XML-based stds).

Steve