Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

You're right that there is probably nothing very new here, but I am
afraid I don't get your point.

Do you mean that such large systems cannot be modeled, that a single
model cannot be shared by all the involved parties or that schema
languages should try to (better) take this requirement into account ?

Eric

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> It has been stated for some time from experience with
> large data systems in CALS:
> 
> 1.  Monolithic DTDs failed generally to be workable
> both in production and in maintenance.
> 
> 2.  Parameter entities bought little but naming
> sugar for the DTD maintainer
> 
> 3.  Most systems are better expressed in families
> of definitions with links among the definitions for
> named relationships (say over containment for a weak
> IS-A or HAS-A)
> 
> So, not exactly a new requirement.  Some thought
> modularity was the right approach, but it is only
> part of it.  Modularity bought us smaller table level
> definitions, but not interrelated tables as are typical
> of parent/child tables.   The issue has been
> that as was stated in another thread, people have mostly
> built small XML systems and have yet to tackle the
> problems of large interrelated sets.
> 
> Again, and as I asked James and Rick, step back
> and look at this in terms of very large pipelines
> of information moving among agencies and consider
> the costs of creating models that have to be shared
> and among which, pieces of the data migrate.
> 
> Len Bullard
> Intergraph Public Safety
> clbullar@ingr.com
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
> 
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------