[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Data design methods? (was Re: APIs, messaging)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:03 -0500
No, I think the dilemmas are related:
1. Data design or object-oriented design?
2. What tool for either?
3. Are there metrics for good design that the
tool enables, enforces, or prevents?
IOW, how many of you think this is good design:
various and sundry foo children
Some will say, "what is that wrapper tag doing
in there; child nodeness is an XML property not
needed in the actual instance!" But for someone
who wants a context-free parse (What! NO XML PARSE!)
and sees those various and sundry foo children
as objects in object oriented fields, well it looks
This isn't easy. The presence of meta-information
modelers makes it harder. It is very hard to model
above the level of the instance if it is an *instance*.
It pushes one back to value-pair design and looks a
lot like... architectural forms.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> The critical question: by what criteria does one choose to create a UML
> description, or an RDF Description, or a Topic Map, or just an XML
I have an even more basic question: by what criteria does one choose between
different DATA designs? OO methodologies provide criteria for choosing
different designs, but as we've brought out here, a good OO design *hides*
structures. Are there widely accepted criteria for defining "good" data
independently of the algorithms used to process them?
The only thing that comes to mind that would be relevant to XML is
Entity-Relationship Modelling. Any thoughts?
I'm aware of David Carlson's website www.xmlmodeling.com (and his recent
but from a quick look it seems to focus on the mechanics of using UML to
various XML schemas rather than the "aesthetics" of what a good design looks
like. Am I missing something?