[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Proposal: Global IDs for hypergrid dims
- To: Brent Turcotte <brentt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Proposal: Global IDs for hypergrid dims
- From: "B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:28:02 +0200
- Cc: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- References: <188.8.131.52.20011007215014.46672c80@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Brent Turcotte wrote:
> I think it would work. The value of a standards for dimensions is great,
> especially when considering virtual structures. A virtual structure for web
> pages, conventional databases, word processor documents, etc, would likely
> average between five to about fifty dimensions. A lot of dimensions are
> required to accurately describe and bring in a file format into the zigzag
> structure. Not all the information in a virtual structure will likely be used
> by applitudes, but it is best to fully translate the file format.
What exactly do you mean by "virtual structure?" Just a ZZ
representation of the data in a specific file format-- or a set of
virtual cells describing the content of an actual external file, in such
a representation? Your wording seems to suggest the latter, but I'm not
positive I'm really understanding yet.
In any case, I agree that a ZigZag mapping of the data in common file
formats is a good thing. One I would like to propose as a starting point
is the Java .class format, because being able to represent it might make
writing a clang compiler easier; we want to write such a beast at some
point and hope that it will boost development. However, as it's not
quite time to do that, I won't insist on starting with .class. Word
would be another good starting point, because it's something interfacing
with is particularly important, but it's probably quite complex and twisted.
And, of course, XML... but bare-bones XML should be easy.
> There will be considerably overlap in appropriate dimensions between similiar
> file formats (such as different word processing file formats) and dissimiliar
> formats (such as a word processing vs database file formats). Yet all file
> formats do have subtle differences, which do need to be taken into account.
> If we didn't have standardized dimensions for virtual structures, the result
> would be chaos for applitude writers. A central registry is likely
> URIs, are probably good enough. It would allow anyone to suggest an
> dimension to be made standard. It the programming community likes it, they
> adopt it, otherwise it will dropped or depreciated.
Just to emphasize: this is of course not what I was proposing; you can
standardize dimensions in any scheme for dimension identifiers, what I
was proposing was only to have a "super-scheme" for dimension
identifiers that works for all hypergrid implementations. But then of
course being able to define the dimensions once and for all impls makes
the value of standardized dimensions much greater.
The nice thing about standardized dimensions is that nobody is forced to
use them; if they don't do what you need, you can invent your own ones.
> To come up with suitable dimensions for virtual structures, I believe the best
> approach might be for a small group of people to:
> 1) dig up the documents on the structure of the most popular (top 100?) file
> 2) assign appropriate dimensions for virtual structures
> 3) later on, design applitudes which convert file formats into virtual
> I would like to volunteer by finding and understanding the documentation
> on the structure of popular file formats and creating a draft of
> standard dimensions.
Where do you intend to start? Or do you have already?
Looking forward to discussion,