Lists Home |
Date Index |
> At 02:11 PM 7/6/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> >At 10:53 AM 7/6/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >>So obviously using data typing in XML is outside your use cases so why
> >>are you still arguing the point? Why not simply agree to disagree.
> >It's not just outside out my use cases. At this point I see it as
> >outright pollution, a dangerous mash that developers are mistaking for
> >what XML actually does.
> Perhaps developers are assuming this because the body that owns the
> trademark on XML and is responsible for developing it has said so. And
> perhaps the W3C did so because, believe it or not, developers were begging
> us for datatypes. And perhaps that's the reason that the simple datatypes
> of XML Schema are being used in other standards and systems, including many
> that simply don't want to see the total complexity of XML Schema. RELAX-NG,
> for instance.
So you say. I've conceded in other messages that these separate groups will just have to keep in opposition to each other, and the marketplace will decide. You seem pretty confident that the long term market of XML will favor sophisticated type systems and other data binding issues mixed into core XML processing. I predict that this approach will flop. We shall see, but I'll go one up on Sean McGrath's bet: if all this overgrown welter of "object XML" is still in serious play in 2006, and I show up at any XML conference, it will be in a tutu and an afro with a chin strap.
> So far, when I ask how I am supposed to sort my integers correctly, you
> have told me merely that I could use many layers of software to do this.
I'd like to see the quote of anyone here who said anything about many layers of software. Layered specifications do not automatically lead to layered software, as I would think is intuitively obvious.
> You have not yet shown me how to use these multiple layers to do what
> XQuery was designed to do - query large persistent stores of XML, views of
> non-XML data, allow queries to integrate the two,
These strike me as precisely the sorts of matters that are not even yet ready for standardization. First of all, querying a lot of persistent XML and viewing non-XML data in XML forms are very different matters, and very different needs. The latter is useful regardless of how much data is in play, and whether or not it is persistent. It is not ready for standardization because it is such a varied matter. The RDBMS vendors all have different approaches to the problem, and on the OO front there are things such as JXPath. I'm not sure why this diversity needs to be scrapped. The former, I think, might eventually make sense to standardize, a la SQL/OQL, but I think that the practice of it is still taking shape. For instance, we query large bodies of persisitently stored XML through mappings to RDF which are then accessed through RDF query. This works well for us. There are, of course, many other approaches, such as XIndice. I think there are a lot of lessons to learn b!
efore imposing standards on this area.
> provide type safety for queries, etc.
I'll leave that to those who care about non-generic type "safety" for queries.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html