xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Lars Marius Garshol
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:20:37 +0200
* Bernard Vatant
| Actually, I at least, for one, am really bothered by this, and it
| goes far beyond the issue of CTM vs XTM, Text vs XML, or TM vs RDF,
| or whatever ... I can't resist comparing evolution of IT languages
| with evolution of mathematical language(s). Over the last centuries,
| mathematicians has achieved a tremendous effort of standardisation
| and simplification of their tools. Agreed, full standardisation is
| not complete, but there are not dozens of syntaxes to express any
| given mathematical concept.
That may be so, and I can sympathize with the desire for fewer and
simpler technologies, but let's face it: mathemathics has a head start
of several thousand years. :)
In any case, evolution and survival of the fittest will operate as
usual. What didn't get mindshare in mathematics went away, and what
doesn't get marketshare in IT also goes away (usually, in the end).
| I wish I could see a similar trend in IT, and I'm not sure I'm
| seeing it, to say the least, despite claims everywhere of "semantic
No, I have to agree with you there. Most attempts at this seem to just
make the confusion even worse.
| Indeed new languages and syntaxes are created all the time, with the
| correlative waste of time and energy to invent, specify, promote,
| understand, learn, build applications on top of them, compare and
| translate into each other ...
True, but, like I wrote, I guess you should rejoice that we're going
from two compact syntaxes to just one. So CTM will actually simplify
things, not mean more to learn. I'd recommend that you not look at
either LTM or AsTMa=, but learn CTM when it's ready.
| At some point in the early 80's I wanted to migrate this paper
| legacy into some more compact digital technology. I'm glad I did not
| find the time to do it, because it would be all lost now.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >