[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:50:41 -0500
I'm wondering if for some projects, it isn't also
the best way to start. In other words, should
one create a UML-like design if what is being
designed is NOT an OOP, but simply the data
exchanged? Sure, we eventually arrive at a system
where a catalog or RDDL or whatever bag-o-typedLinks
is chosen ties together components by named roles,
descriptions. I can do a data-centric design
with XML Schemas or even DTDs and have. I understand
the problem of things such as co-occurrence contraints.
So I have RDF and XML Schema.
When do I need RDF?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
[Bullard, Claude L (Len]
> In a relational system, it is as if one designed
> the report data, then designed the tables, then designed
> the queries that produce the reports. Then they
> discover the business rules. Then they create the
A lot of legacy systems have been reconstructed just that way ( if you
include the data entry screens in the first step) - start from the reports
and screens, figure out the minimal data set you need to support them, and
go on from there. Seems backwards, but sometimes that's all you've got.