[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Just for discussion, here are two *hypothetical*
> database systems with a listing of corresponding
> datatypes. (no they are real but let's not get
> into the vendors). Both of these can issue and
> accept XML. Without a way to spec datatypes,
> just how good are my chances that the db will
> handle the data not as I see fit, but such that
> regardless of the db, I or anyone that uses the
> XML, will get the same results.
>
> Doesn't this become an issue for anyone who
> tries to spec a common XML document type
> for say, ebXML? Are elements and attribute
> names sufficient? Today, we have to write
> a lot of code to handle this. I don't think
> that is a good solution for interop.
Your implication, if I read you rightly, is that it's better to use declarative means to ensure this conformance rather than writing a lot of"code".
Believe me, I preach this gospel every day.
My point is that there is more than one way to declare constraints, and I don't think the way enshrined by XSDL is especially useful, nor do I believe it should receive consideration at the expense of other schemes.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
