DanMcCreary

1. Download fresh copy of eXist from svn via TortoiseSVN or Eclipse subversion subclipse plugin from the eXist SVN sourceforge repository:

   https://exist.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/exist

2. (Confirm environmental variables are set correctly for JAVA_HOME and EXIST_HOME) To do this I use the Windows/Computer/Properties/Advanced Settings and check it with the SET command at the CMD prompt. The result looks like this:

   JAVA_HOME=C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.6.0_10
   

   My Eclipse workspace is just "C:\ws" and I created a project called eXist-1.3 so the path name I used for EXIST_HOME is:

   EXIST_HOME=C:\ws\eXist-1.3dev
   

3. Open the DOS cmd prompt, cd to eXist directory
4. type in "build.bat"
5. Type in "build.bat -f build\scripts\jarsigner.xml"

Those of you that have worked with me know that I am a little bit of an odd-duck. I have dyslexia. If you ever see me attempt to write on a whiteboard my spelling is at the ninth grade level. My left brain, used for phoneme recognition, never really developed like the rest of you. My right brain had to be co-opted to help out. But one of the skills I seemed to have picked up due to my over-exercised right brain is the ability to visualize multiple complex application architectures and quickly understand architectural tradeoffs. I am one of the few people that seem to be interested in discussing how XForms, metadata registries, ontologies, the semantic web, OWL, RDF, graphs, business rules, BPM and Kimball conformed dimensions all can work together to deliver elegant and cost-effective enterprise-scale solutions. It seems easy for me to simultaneously visualize two or more architectures and it constantly challenges my patience when I have to explain over and over why architecture alternatives will not meet a business requirement.

It turns out that many people that have dyslexia also have the gift of being able to visualize complex systems. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Jackie Steward and Charles Schwab are good examples of dyslexic people that have used the strengths of the right brain to do things that left-brain thinkers could not.

As a right-brain centric person I need to also tell you that I really love the XForms architecture. The magic of a declarative language, MVC, bindings and a dependency graph makes XForms development 10 years more advanced than anything else I have worked with. I think it is beautiful and elegant. It is everything that AJAX and JavaScript application are not. Clean, simple and easy to visualize (for me at least). When someone asks me if I can create an XForms application to do something, I create a mental image in my mind of the model, the view and how events will update instance data in the model using inserts or external submission results. I can easily visualize the bindings of view controls to data elements in the model. Once I can visualize the application clearly, writing the application is just a matter of typing in the code.

I think that my right-brain is also a reason I detest JavaScript and AJAX. It is far too much code to read and trying to visualize how 300 lines of JavaScript enables me to do a drag-and-drop. I want to just add an attribute to an element like "drag-source" and "drop-target" and I want it to just work.

What triggered this posting is that I have been reading Proust and the Squid by Maryanne Wolf. This is a book about how the brain's circuits are used in the reading process. She has a wonderful explanation of how the dyslexic brain co-opts the right brain for reading and enhances it functionality. I didn't really understand the relationship between my defects and my gifts .

So how about you and your development team? Do you have a dyslexic right-brained person on your team? Can they quickly visualize architectural tradeoffs? Have they tried XForms? And if they do, will you be willing to tolerate their disgust of AJAX and JavaScript after they have built their first XForms applications?

1. Population of County (size of bubble)
2. Continent (color of bubble)
3. Live Expectancy (vertical axis)
4. Income (horizontal)
5. Time (the play button)

For several years people have been using the terms metadata Registry and Repository inconstantly, imprecisely and almost interchangeably and I would like to weigh in as to how these terms could be used more precisely to allow organizations to effectively to manage metadata processes.

First lets take the definition of a Repository. Webster defines a repository as …a place, room, or container where something is deposited or stored.. Note that here is nothing in this definition about the quality of the things being stored or the process to check to see if new incoming items are duplicates of things already in the repository. If I have 100 users they could each define "Customer" as the see fit and put their own definition into the metadata repository as their own definition. No problems.

On the other had lets take the word Registry. A Registry has the connotation of more than just a shared dumping ground. Registries have the additional capability to create workflow processes to check that new metadata is not a duplicate (for a given namespace). One of the definitions from Webster is an official record book. Note the word official.

A Repository is similar to a front-porch of a house. No locks prevent new things from landing there. But a Registry is a protected back room where human-centric workflow processes are used ensure that metadata items are non-duplicates, precise, consistent, concise, distinct, approved and unencumbered with business rules that prevent reuse across an enterprise. These registries have become the central foundation that agility can be baked-in to many enterprise process. The latest version of the Kimball's Data Warehouse Lifecycle Toolkit (which is actually a very good read) even goes as far as to call their process "metadata-driven". Not different the model-driven development world.

Registries have the implicit connotation of trust behind them. They now serve a a central process for the creation of shared meaning across the enterprise. Definitions in a registry have been vetted by an enterprise-level organization that has the responsibility of enterprise data stewardship. They have a high probability of being consistent with industry best-practices and vertical industry standards. Registries are the go-to source for creating canonical XML schemas, enterprise ontologies or conformed dimensions in a OLAP cube. Repositories are personal or small departmental definitions of an isolated view of the world.

None of these ideas are really new. They are at the core of the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registry standard. Note that they don't call it a repository standard! People are just now starting to understand how important Registries are in most enterprise-wide systems. The growth of Business Intelligence and Enterprise Data Warehouse terminology and Service Oriented Architectures is a good place to see the rise of repositories and registries. We now see service registries, portlet registries, model registries...the list goes on-and-on.

Much of the background on the differences between the use of repositories and registries can be traced way back to the early days of object-oriented systems in the 1995 book Succeeding with Objects by Adele Goldberg and Kenneth Rubin. This was one of the first books on enterprise reuse strategies and they defined the concept enterprise asset reuse and the need for a trust-driven repository as a basis for reusing assets. They identified a multi-step process for reviewing new submissions to determine if the submission duplicated existing assets. They showed how critical it was to classify items in a registry and search an existing registry for duplicates before new items are added. If you can get a copy of the book I would suggest you read the section on "Set Up a Process for Maintaining Reusable Assets" on page 245.

The book then goes on to show how organizations can and should be structured to reuse these assets and gives the pros and cons of the differing organization structures and their impact on reuse. This is the basis for the data governance and data stewardship movement in many organizations today.

So the next time someone uses the word registry or repository in a conversation, ask them if they are using the definition of the word that is consistent with the corporate business term registry or is their own private definition from their own repository of imprecisely used buzzwords.

I am happy to announce that the XForms Tutorial and Cookbook that I have been working on for over a year been voted a "Featured Book" on the wikibooks web site. A quote from the award:

XForms is a featured book on Wikibooks because it contains substantial content, it is well-formatted, and the Wikibooks community has decided to feature it on the main page or in other places. Please continue to improve it and thanks for the great work so far!

Here are some stats on the book so far: 90 sample programs
116 chapters
626 edits
28,811 words
29 registered authors

One of the big tasks is to start to move some of the advanced XForms examples that require siginficant server-side logic to a seperate server-specific book. As a pilot I have started an XRX cookbook for people using REST interfaces and the eXist server.

I would like to thank the over 30 others that have contributed ideas and content to this wikibook. We still have lots of work to do to cleanup the example programs, make them more consistent and add additional examples for new XForms students. But I believe it is one of the best examples of collaborative training that I have worked on in the last few years.

This posting describes how using three technologies (XForms, REST and XQuery or XRX) you can dramatically transform your organizations development methodology. You can move true model-driven architecture (MDA) that dramatically reduces the temptation to duplicate code.

In January of 2007 I was working on a complex real-estate forms project for a state agency in Minnesota. Our job was to get 87 counties across the state of Minnesota to agree on the over 250 data elements that describe real estate transactions. We had spend months developing a complex XML Schema and web forms with over 50 one-to-many relationships. And out next task was to be able to save the form

data into a structure that could be quickly queried by any of these 250 data elements. But the prospect of "shredding" the documents up into 50 distinct SQL INSERT statements and then reconstituting the documents with 50 distinct SQL SELECT statements was going to require doubling our small team of four to at least eight developers. We didn't have the budget or schedule to do this. After chatting with Kurt Cagle he suggested saving the data to a database that supported XQuery. Both the open source eXist native XML database and our corporate standard, DB2 supported XQuery. It turned out that we could indeed save the entire document with a single command and still perform complex queries on any element in any document. Our project could proceed with a small team and stay on schedule.

And then an interesting thing happened. Our team started to understand that if we saved additional metadata in these native XML data stores we could accelerate our project even further. Every pick-list in every form could dynamically call REST-enabled web services to get their values. XML Schemas could be stored in the databases and be queried. We had found a simple and elegant solution to the pervasive problem of where to store the model in a model-driven development project.

In the past I had been on large teams of developers that attempted to use model-driven development. But although we started out each project with idealistic goals, each time we were faces with a classic option: copy, paste and edit the model or write a transform. The copy and paste solution was quick but it would have to be redone each time the model changes. The transform took longer to write but then could be rerun each time the model changed.

Like most developers, I always was over-optimistic that I had done my homework and done accurate and detailed modeling of the problem. I thought the models were stable and would not change very often. And I was almost always wrong. Models do change and sometimes in totally unexpected ways.

But by storing our models in a native XML database an interesting started to happen. We could quickly transform the models (stored in XML) into other artifacts with simple XQueries. It became far less tempting to commit the sins of copy/paste/edit when it only took five minutes to create another transform. And most remarkably, each of these transforms was another REST enabled web service that could be reused by many web clients or other development tools.

So how do you get started? You might try the following steps.

1. Download the exist database from http://www.exist-db.org
2. Use a WebDAV interface and copy some XML Schema documents into a collection
3. Write a few small XQuerys that pull metadata out of your XML Schemas. For example pull out all the enumeration values out of an element.
4. Use those XQueries to drive some aspects of your development such as an XForms selection list.
5. Compare the amount of code you wrote with any other MDA system. If you don't have at least a 10 to 1 savings I would be very surprised.

What do you think? Do you have a more efficient way to query your model? Let me know!

- Dan

As the year starts to come to a close we often take some time to look back at the year and look at the innovations that we have seen that have changed our worldview. I can think of many things that have had a large impact on me: The FireFox XForms extension, discovering the beauty of a well-designed REST interface, the mule enterprise service bus, Yahoo pipes and microformats all come to mind.

But after careful consideration I have to hand my award out to the most innovative application of the year to me to the eXist database/web server. This application constantly amazes me with what I can do with it. If you have a Java JVM on your desktop it only take a few minutes to get it running. Hit the startup script and you have a web server running on localhost:8080. Open a WebDAV browser and drag-and-drop you files and folders and away you go. With eXist I can easily setup a full enterprise metadata registry on a laptop in under five minutes.

The power of eXist comes from its use of the XQuery engine. Any well-formed XML file that is added to the system gets instantly indexed and can instantly be searched. That means that 10ms after you hit the "Save" on your XForms you can see the data appear in XQuery reports.

But the "Secret Sauce" of eXist rests in it's use of a lightweight Jetty web server with a remarkably integrated REST and WebDAV interface. This means that every XML file…is a static web service. This means that every XQuery that returns XML…is a dynamic web service that you can parameterize. This means that you can be writing your first web services in fifteen minutes that can be grabbing data from a dozen different XML files and quickly serializing the results out the wire. Enterprise mash-ups at your fingertips. Very little programming is done other then selecting data. Just like it should be.

eXist technologies are going to start to have a big impact once XForms/REST and XQuery (XRX) web development matures. I predict this is going to happen in the next three years. An although IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and many others are supporting XQuery in a big way, they don't yet have the really smooth integration with next-generation XForms-driven clients. You still need teams of AJAX, JavaScript, Java, .Net and SQL programmers to build simple web services for rich client interfaces.

I must admit it took me a little while to really understand how the simplicity of the interface really rocked my world. Just swap out the world "rest" in the URL and replace it with the word "webdav" and you go from a data browser to a file system that works with every copy/cut and paste operation of the file system.

It is also interesting to note that this product did not come out of a Bay Areas startup, it didn't come out of Google Labs, it didn't come from Microsoft or IBM. From what I can tell the initial version was pretty much written by a single guy in Germany, Wolfgang Meier. It think this shows that there is still room for true innovation by a single individual in this world. Although eXist now appears to have a great team of people behind it, it shows that a single person with a clear architectural can put the right pieces together really can make a difference in the world. Our teams could not have been as productive with XForms if we didn't have a clean and elegant tool like eXist behind our forms. I know that XRX innovators will no be able to stand on Wolfgang's shoulders and build incredible applications.

Thanks Wolfgang! Your labor of love is growing up!

At the XML 2007 conference there were many people that seemed to have independently discovered that if you combine XForms/REST and XQuery you can create a software development environment that circumvents the need for middle tier objects and conversion to and from relational databases.

The conference also had a great deal of discussion of how XForms is a great architecture but as Elliot Rusty Harold pointed out, we need something to happen for XForms to replace things like AJAX. Although Rusty did propose a few interesting ideas (like getting XForms built into FireFox) I feel what we really need is a contagious meme. And I think it goes beyond XForms. What we need is an easy-to-remember and easy-to-communicate name for a collection of great ideas. For example there are few books that have the word XMLHttpRequest in it. But there are hundreds of books with AJAX in the title. Once the word AJAX was coined the meme started to spread. The world was waiting for the "sticky" label behind the concepts.

What XForms needs is a label around the collection of ideas that makes XForms really give you an order-of-magnitude improvement over other web development architectures. I would like to suggest that we get behind one "label" that brings many of use under one big tent. I would like to suggest we use "XRX".

XRX to me would stand for the ideas behind XForms/REST/XQuery web applications. But if people are using XHTML as a container for XForms you could use XHTML/REST/XQuery. Just spare use the "J" which is associated with a hard-to-use language for über geeks.

You could also use XRX for the format of the data in the client and on the server. In this case it would be XML on the client (in the XForms Model), and in a native XML database that supports a REST interface.

We can still build awesome tools and frameworks that make the XRX architecture really fly. IBM Workplace Forms Development tools, Orbeon Presentation Server, Kurt Cagle's new frameworks that use the eXist native XML database, and the hundreds of other XForms development tools all fit into the XRX strategy.

But if we make XRX into a "big tent" strategy we can also include XQuery on the server as part of the architecture. This would include people like Jason Hunter at MarkLogic. Jason is an experienced Java developer that has started to move away from Java on the server and toward XQuery because of its richness. And I could not agree more.

I have been reading the book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell and trying to apply the ideas in it to the adoption of XForms and XQuery. I think that the book has many example of how a careful packaging of the ideas behind a contagious meme can make ideas spread like widefire.

So when we hear the term "XRX" we want to have the following concepts come to mind:

1. A web development architecture with a 10x productivity improvement over traditional JavaScript/OO/RDBMS methods
2. A development architecture based on international standards that is designed to minimize the probability of vendor-lockin
3. An architecture that gives a rich user experience without creating mountains of spaghetti procedural code on either the client or the server
4. A system that leverages the REST architecture to take advantage of high-performance and simple interfaces using web standards
5. Portability on both the client and the server using a variety of forms players and XQuery databases
6. The option of avoiding costly shredding (and reconstitution) of complex XML documents into RDBMS tables
7. A community of standards/tools and a "complete solution" ecosystem that can give you a proven ROI on your IT investment

I don't expect everyone to buy into the XRX meme ideas. Everyone has their own favorite tools/standards and acronyms. But everyone that was at the XML 2007 conference could feel the excitement in the room at the XML presentations. Now we need to give that excitement a name and see if it sticks. Hopefully a few years we will be able to walk into a bookstore and see a bunch of books with "XRX" on the cover.

What I now need is for people to start to test the XRX meme and see if it slicks. Let me know what works and what does work. Send me your 30-second elevator pitch. How big should the idea tent be? What do we have to do to get more people in our tent? What evidence (case studies), example programs and resource do we need to convince the world we have seen the light …and its so elegant and beauty to will keep us from ever going back to the stone age of web development.

At the recent XML 2007 conference in Boston several of us met to discuss what we could do to promote FireFox and some of the important standards built into FireFox (or almost built into FireFox). Specifically several of us were using XForms and SVG and thought that the combination offered some great opportunities.

It was pointed out that the combination of the XForms range control (a slider control) and SVG allowed developers to create dynamic graphs for teaching educational concepts. There is an example here:

Note there is a link to the actual program here which you will need to use the FireFox XForms extension to view.:

So several of us are interested in putting together a grant to develop SmartBoard enabled educational content for the K-12 market using a combination of FireFox, XForms and SVG. The goal would be to create a "Killer App" for FireFox in the K-12 space. Ideally we will build 100 demos of some of the most useful dynamic graphs and then build a framework for teachers to extend these applications.

I also have a few Supply and Demand examples that run under IE but require the SVG add-on and just just plain JavaScript for the range-controls: http://www.danmccreary.com/svg/ You will note that visualizing the maximum profit by the area of the square under the triangle is much easier when you add the motion.

It was also pointed out that the Mozilla foundation has the funds to support this type of development and that they might fund a grant to build the top 100 useful dynamic graphs. We could then start building a toolkit to extend these dynamic graphs using some of the advanced drag-and-drop connection-based programming parts of SVG and FireFox. The kit should shield the average middle school physics teacher from haveing to write and debug JavaScript.

Let me know what you think - Dan

I returned from the XML 2007 conference in Boston with my head spinning about all the new developments with XForms and XQuery. The conference was three days long and had between three and five tracks going concurrently. My impression was that there were about 400 people there.

Here are some of the highlights for me.

XForms appears to be getting lots of traction. The XForms sessions were all packed with standing-room only in most of them. The presenters we passionate that the combination of XForms, REST and XQuery has had a huge impact on their projects and may soon impact the rest of the development world.

Microformats are definitely starting to make huge strides where Metcalf's Law will start to kick in. The existence of 450 million tags and five FireFox microformat extensions indicate that within a year it will be just part of web publishing best practices. Even Microsoft is said to be supporting Microformats in IE 8, just a few years from now.

Taylor Cowan (who works for Sabre) gave an excellent presentation on how Microformats can be extended into the travel space with an Atom based format for publishing trip ideas. His use of Atom and semantic web technologies was right in line with my vision of how personalized agents are going to leverage microformats.

John Boyer's demo of IBM's Workplace Manager showed that you can now purchase top-shelf XForms GUI design tools that does not lock you into a proprietary vendor solution. I hope the people from Microsoft, Adobe, FairIsaac, Altova, Google GWT and other vendors take notice. Locking your users into a Java or JavaScript client is no longer an acceptable strategic option for developing web applications. Wake up everyone! Are you listening? We have a standard that works and lets now start building more great tools that use this standard. XForms is the only system that is creating as John puts it "Order of Magnitude" increases in developer productivity.

Mark Birbeck's Sidewinder demo showed that XForms is breaking out of the browser an on to the desktop. Showing web and iPhone web pages directly in desktop widgets was a great demonstration of the power of XForms.

Kurt Cagle's presentation about problems with programming with the fragile DOM model in JavaScript was interesting in its format. The presentation was actually an XForms application running on eXist. Kurt "eats his own dog food" on the client and the server! I am humbled by the man.

Jason Hunter from MarkLogic (an XML database vendor) gave an nice demo of the MarkMail.org application and showed that, yes, XQuery databases really do scale to the terabyte range. He has about 4 million e-mail messages indexed and you can do combinations of database and text searches in a few seconds. In other words a demonstration of how real-world analytics comes to XQuery. I also found out that MarkLogic is free if your database is under 100MB. Perfect for 10MB of metadata in a metadata registry.

The people from IBM research labs appear to be starting to take the XForms MVC architecture and really run with it. We saw some very interesting presentations on how future standards for data driven XML Application Components (XACs) and State Chart XML (SCXML) might be used in the future to make browser-based mash-ups easier. Componentization, composition, customization and reuse are all part of this architecture and it would not be possible without XForms MVC architecture. Hopefully Charles Weicha from IBM research will post his slides so you can see more.

Norm Walsh also talked about how the new XML Pipeline standard (XProc) is starting to take shape. Even though the standard is still in working draft there are already at least five implementations of the standard. This single standard could have more impact on the shape of server-side processing then any other standard coming out of the w3c. Integrating this into XQuery-based application servers seems to be the next step.

The eXist database also seemed to clean up all the open source native XML database talks. eXist was mentioned in over a half-dozen presentations and there were no other native XML databases even mentioned in the presentations I attended. It is not surprising that eXist is now the top hit on Google when you search for "XML database".

One of the most interesting presentations that I did not get a chance to see (but I did talk to the presenter afterwards) was Thomas White's presentation on using XSLT in the browser to get a 10x speedup in form rendering. It turns out that implementations of XForms players like FromFaces use heavyweight JavaScript objects in the browser. Thomas has found that a donkey cart can be turned into a sports car by implementing an in-browser XSLT centric event scheduler. If his architecture is implemented we could see vastly better XForms players in the future. Lets all hope that Thomas's architecture comes to the XForms world sooner than later.

I did not attend any of the XML publishing tracks. But from the titles it appears that the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) standard is a hot topic. Presentations on using XSL-FO and CSS for book and other print publishing were also on the agenda.

I also did not attend too many of the XML in the Enterprise tracks. There were good presentations on XML accelerators, security and mining XML Schemas.

I am disappointed that the conference organizers did not do anything to require that people post their presentation on the web site before their talk. There were many very interesting presentations that could have a larger impact the world and the sloppiness of people not publishing their slides seems to be a little unprofessional. There were some people that just brought their digital cameras and took pictures of each slide. Smart.

In summary I think that the conference had two types of people:

First there were people that had not done extensive work with XForms. The first group I call the "evolutionary proceduralists". Theses were people that were trying to beat the dead horse by patching the old-style procedural web application architecture with JavaScript, JSON and AJAX hacks. They seemed to spend a lot of time arguing about the merits of JSON vs. XML as a data transport syntax.

The other type were "the enlightened innovators". People that have seen the real world benefits of dumping object middle-tier stacks and relational databases and going with a pure declarative approach to solving business problems based around XForms/REST and XQuery. These were the people that are going to lead innovations in application development.

I was also impressed how a large percentage of XML innovations came from outside the US. I attribute the fact that some of the best presentations came from the UK to be the "Michael Kay" effect.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder At one of the XForms sessions a young Ruby advocate stated that he thought his Ruby code was "beautiful" but he did not himself think that XForms code was "beautiful". Most of the people in the audience agreed that XForms was beautiful but like any new language, it takes getting used to. Beauty is the process of your visual cortex recognizing familiar patterns and signaling your pleasure centers. If you have never read Japanese then the most profound Haiku written in the most beautiful script will not have beauty.

XForms/REST/XQuery to me is indeed beautiful. Its beauty comes from its ability to quickly map real-world requirements into working systems with high fidelity. No other system in the world approaches its elegant architecture. And after XML 2007 I realized I was not the only one that had independently reached this conclusion.

I have been using the eXist (http:www.exist-db.org) native XML database for almost a year now and I am constantly impressed by the power and depth of the eXist community. XQuery is a great way to search XML documents and most of my XSLTs that manage metadata are now being transferred to XQuery. Although there are still some places that XSLTs are superior, XQuery is much easier to use when I am building RESTful web services for metadata. My XForms are frequently generated directly from XQuery programs.

It is interesting to note that eXist is now dominating all the Google search results for "XML database". Leading the pack and pulling away!

From my days doing IT strategy I recall a great deal of analysis done by Adele Goldberg and Kenneth S. Rubin and documented in their excellent book Succeeding With Objects: Decision Frameworks for Project Management. This is an excellent book based on over 50 case studies on reuse and top-notch analysis of the role of trust in any high-reuse culture.

One of the key points in the Goldberg/Rubin analysis was the factors that cause people to be able to reuse assets. In their case the assists were programming objects. I my case I am concerned with the reuse of data objects. From simple data types that are part of the XML Schema standards to registered data elements in a metadata registry. Registered data elements have an approval process and have semantics that span a group, project, program or enterprise.

But the pattern that reoccurs is that people need to be able to quickly find assets before they can reuse them. One of my main points in my work is that you can not reuse what you can not find. The corollary is that the longer it takes to find an asset the higher the temptation is to recreate the asset. That is where the search functions of a metadata registry needs to come in. It must be fast and accurate.

The quality of a metadata registry also depends on strategies about informing users when two data elements have the same semantics and are potentially duplicates. To find this we need semantic nearness searches for data element definitions.

Today I am providing simple substring searches. But I know that text mining can provide semantic nearness searches. I was glad to see that the world-wide web is working on full-text search standards for XQuery. The w3c http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-full-text/standard has now reached the working draft last-call stage and I hope that we soon start to see implementations that take advantage of these features. I know that Google's support of this project for eXist (see http://exist.sourceforge.net/soc-ft.html) is a very good sign.

I was also fortunate to work with Gary Berosik on the Advocate Agents project. Gary works for Thomson/West Publishing that has a large group of people doing text mining. Gary introduced my to the Text Mining Application Programming book by Manu Konchandy. This book has excellent sections on the decomposition of free-form text into parts of speech for information extraction, clustering, categorization and search.

I hope that eventually the w3c will approve the full text extensions to XQuery and that they will make it into the eXist system. Based on this link http://exist.sourceforge.net/soc-ft.html I am hoping that it will be in the next few years.

For the last five years I have been using a XML Schema design process that I learned from the people at Georgia Tech Research Institute as part of my work with GJXDM and the NIEM. This work has strongly been influenced by Jim Heldler who co-wrote the Semantic Web article with Tim Berners-Lee. Although GTRI wanted to use RDF (graphs) to represent the exchange data they had to settle on using XML and XML Schemas since those technologies were widely used by most criminal justice agencies already. They compromised by still using a striped model within the XML Schema driven structures.

Creating an exchange documents starts with creating a metadata registry of all the data elements used in a family of XML Schemas. A shopping-cart-like tool is used to select a subset of the data elements. These data elements form a "wantlist" of data elements. The checkout process creates a zip file that when uncompressed creates a set of XML Schema file that you import into your constraint schema.

This process is an order-of-magnitude to use than before the subschema generation tools were created by GTRI. The subschema generated by the checkout process not only included the XML Schema type definitions but also all the data types that they depended on. The metadata registry had an internal dependency list that it maintained and so if you needed just ten data elements but they depended on then other data types you got all 20. you didn't have to manually figure out what additional data types to include.

I adopted the GTRI shopping-cart process to include adding a "subscribers list" to each of my data elements used in local metadata registries and local XML Schema creation. I used a large, complex and brittle ant script to update all the imported files for each XML Schema we were developing. But this could not easily be done during a requirements gathering meeting.

In the past we have viewed this subschema generation as a process of interacting with a web application that creates a set of files. One of our first insights is that this process is in fact just a transformation of the metadata registry based on the rules created by a wantlist and the dependency graph. It does not have to be a manual "batch" process.

In a recent blog (Metadata Web Services) I pointed out that tools like eXist and XForms allow us to store metadata in XML format and allow it to be easily updated by BAs and SMEs and queried using languages like XQuery. One of the great realizations I had on my last project was that XQuery has a simple construct that allows you to "chain" web services. The argument to the doc() function is just a URL. If that URL points to a web service that returns XML you can easily build composite web services. Web services that are transformations can be chained together. This allows you to start using enterprise integration patterns to build reusable services at a very fine grain.

Putting these facts together it has occurred to me that the ultimate goal of the metadata registry process is to allows new data element definitions and enumerated values to be changed during a XML Schema design process. We should be able to change a definition, hit the "save" on the XForms application that edits data elements and then just refresh the generated subschema. The refresh process must call a XQuery that calls web services that analyzes the dependency graph and updates new data elements imported into the XML Schema.

What this does is helps us get to the goal of updating the a model quickly and generating new artifacts directly from the model. This is part of the overall model-driven development process. The artifacts we create include XML Schemas, instance documents generated from the XML Schemas and XForms applications to view and edit the documents. This faster turn-around time allows our users to quickly see if their definitions and enumerated values are being precisely captured and used to create actual systems.

Impressions of Sem-Tech -07

I just returned from the 2007 Semantic Technology Conference in San Jose California. It was a great conference and opened my mind to several new ideas. Well worth the time!

The conference was held over four days and had over around 125 presentations including tutorials and research projects. There were almost 800 attendees. This is the third semantic technology conference that I attended and the second that I presented a paper at.

Here are some high-level observations and some patterns that I detected.

The Semantic Web gets the “Web 3.0” Label

Most people at the conference have tried to embrace the idea that the semantic web will be adopting the popular culture label “Web 3.0”. The final straw was the Nov 2006 NYT article by John Markoff which set the blogosphere is a buzz. This was a web that includes technologies to enable intelligent reuse of data. Wikipedia, after a long pro-active discussion about if “Web 3.0” deserved an entry, finally undeleted the page and let is stand. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0 and check out the discussion page on the article for more.

From If to When to How

Eric Miller (now at Zepheira) calls some of the new technologies “recombinant data. Eric spent about five years with the w3c. He is perhaps the most well-connected person in the world with accurate knowledge of who is using semantic web technologies to solve real business problems today. His observation was that three years ago at the first semantic technology we were wondering if the semantic web would take off. Last year the speculation was when the semantic web technologies would start to become common place. This year the focus was debates on how the semantic web should be implemented.

Venture Capitalists are Becoming Educated on the Semantic Web

One example of this is the fact that last year, most semantic-web startup companies had to carefully explain what the semantic web was to venture capital companies when trying to get their initial rounds of funding. This year, many venture capital companies not-only had some level of understanding of the semantic web but were asking each of their potential startups how their technologies fit into the semantic web. Other companies that did not have a semantic-web focus were not coming to the conference to get educated.

Some of the companies that got VC last year have already been purchased and absorbed by larger firms. These companies were replaced by new venture-funded companies.

Consensus on the RDF/SPARQL Foundation

One of the first things that struck me was the consistent use of RDF and triple-stored to solve many hard problems. The use of RDF and SPARQL seemed to be the primary distinguishing factor about if people thought you were really using semantic web technologies or not. If you we not using RDF, you were not really in the club, just and outsider looking in.

OWL Fragmentation

Another thing that also surprised me was the discord about the use of OWL and its relative sub-functions. Central to this was the rise of use-cases of simple things examples of things that OWL could not do. Much of this centered around DLP (Data Log Programming).

A good example of a non-OWL solution was the use of SKOS to store things typically stored in a metadata registry. SKOS is a great example of a simple standard, built on top of RDF that attempts to solve common problems without getting overly complex. See SKOS in Wikipedia.

We are also starting to see that rules must also be exchanged between systems in semantically precise ways. The need for a Rule Interchange Format (RIF). Nice to see vendors like FairIssac supporting complex business rules running INSIDE the web browser using XForms. They rock!

REST is Deep

Perhaps my favorite presentation was given by David Wood and Brian Sletten from Zepheria. In this presentation, David and Brian gave a demo of the NetKernel system. They demonstrated how NetKernel embraces REST at a much deeper level then I had previously anticipated. Now they were not yet generating XForms from an XML Schema but it showed a great example of convergent evolution of my ideas and theirs.

Case Studies

This year also started to show examples of new startup companies actually using semantic web technologies to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Although because they are all trying to differentiate themselves, much of the actual technologies they were using was not disclosed.

RDF Taggers, Harvesters, Linkers and Analyzers

The conference seemed to have three sets of problems that everyone agreed on. First was how do you harvest RDF from a web page or any other resource. Most of these presentations related to getting RDF out of un-structured and structured data. Lots of discussion of microformats (pros and cons).

iReader Rocks

The coolest demo I saw was the iReader demo from http://www.syntactica.com. This is an awesome FireFox (and IE) extension that does concept mapping from unstructured text. The people behind this have been doing research on linguistics for about 40 years and have only recently got a round of venture capital to start to publicize this tool. But they are not yet converting to RDF for storage other systems.

URL Design Patterns

One common themes that came up was the need for best practices about good URL design. Everyone said a few things: The design of URLs is very important, most people screw it up the first time and then have to redo the designs, there are not a lot of good documents out there and the ones that are available are at least five years old. The people from the w3c did take notes on this.

Reception of My Paper

My presentation was titled “The Semantics of Declarative Systems”. This talk covered how by using a set of small languages with precise semantics, you can build entire applications that allow non-programmers to draw pictures of their business requirements and generate working Apps. The purpose of this talk was really to test the metaphors on how I could explain these concepts to non-computer scientists. I got some positive feedback and was happy to see convergent evolution of our designs with other organizations.

The URL to the paper is here:

http://www.danmccreary.com/presentations/sem-web-07

Geoff Moore wrote a very insightful book on technology adoption called “Crossing the Chasm”. If you study the psychology of technology adoption, you find that people and organization fall in a bell curve. About 2% are innovators, 14% are early adopters, 33% early majority, 33% late majority and 15% are laggards. This is all standard stuff out of basic marketing-psychology textbooks. Each group has different reasons for using (or not using) a specific product.

Moore's insight was that many new products never move from early adopters to early majority. He called this region “The Chasm”. I have found that the same rules applyto new standards and new languages.

Moore did a lot of analysis on why some new technologies don’t make it across the chasm despite their merits or why some standards are adopted over others. Hisbiggest finding is that they were just too hard to use by non-techies. They required too much work to setup, install or learn. Ease-of-use was a principal factor in many technologies not being quickly adopted by organizations that did not want to use technology to differentiate their organization. Early Majority customers also tend to purchase new technology not based on how they work but who is using them in their industry. They purchase on references.

New technologies usually need a focused approach in a specific industry to be adopted by an early majority. If an organization can target a specific vertical industry and provide a more complete solution for that industry, once a few reference accounts are set up the rest of the industry can see there are proven case studies.

Another factor is the need of the early majority for complete solutions. Innovators and Early adopters are willing to glue together new technologies into their existing fabric of solutions. They dedicate time, staff and money to do this. If their XForms sends XML data over REST interfaces and their databases use JDBC they hire programmers to write middle-tier applications.

But early majority buyers can’t justify that additional cost. They just want a solution to work out-of-the-box. They are OK paying for a week for training for their BAs, but they don’t want to write and maintain complex applications.

Another thing that I have been searching for are metaphors that are understandable by non-programmers. Since the high-level decision makers are usually non-technical their ability to make a decision is usually based on their trust of the developers or their understanding based on metaphors.

The Language Translation Metaphor I find that if you can send your data from an XForms application directly to a native XML database in XML format that there is no need for middle-tier objects or shredding into relational databases. No translation is involved. One of the ways to demonstrate how machine-based language translation is not always semantically precise is to try an automatic translation program. Convert a statement from a native language into a foreign language and then translate it back. For example try this using Google Language Tools at http://www.google.com/language_tools

Original Phrase in English: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Google Translation to Spanish El zorro marrón rápido saltó sobre el perro perezoso.

Spanish Translation Back to English The fast brown fox jumped on the sluggish dog.

Although Google translate does a pretty good job, quick was changed to fast, over was changed to on, and lazy was changed to sluggish. If you study semantics, you can find lots of problems trying to communicate with close approximations. Note the original implicit business rule of don’t repeat a letter was also lost. We have many implicit business rules in complex systems and translation of these to other formats is always problematic for software developers.

Saving XML using an object-middle tier is one translation. Saving objects to a relational database is a second translation. Fetching data from a database using SQL is a third translation. Converting tabular data into objects is a fourth translation and converting objects back to XML is a fifth transformation. There are five translations, not just two.

Not that XForms solutions today are not without translation. In our process we are planning to convert XML Schemas into XForms as well as initial instance data. We need to also import leaf-level definitions from a metadata registry. But the nice thing about this process is that we can validate the submitted data directly against the original XML Schema that was used to generate the XForms. An elegant self-checking pattern.

All of these transforms are possible. But all have to be maintained each time you change your XML Schema. Right now we also need great tools that translate XML Schemas directly into XForms. And these need to retain the fidelity of the original intent of the subject matter experts.

So perhaps deploying applications with native XML databases is a critical part of the XForms value proposition.

Moore also noted that both early late majority buyers would be more willing to use a technology if it was buried deeply in a complete solution. That way the IT managers don’t have to sell the technology to management, just the solution. Similarly, once third party developers start building accounting or complete solutions for vertical industry using XForms the buyer will not need to know or care how the solution is being delivered.