OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   Re: [xml-dev] 3 possible approaches for representing concepts

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


Hi Joe:

	This is an age-old discussion.  I would like to point you
to Robin Covers website:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/elementsAndAttrs.html

This has some good reading and some good opinions.  

Betty

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Betty Harvey                         | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830 
Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |        
harvey@eccnet.com                    | Washington,DC XML Users Grp
URL:  http://www.eccnet.com          | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/  

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> I would like to please solicit some quick feedback if possible regarding
> an approach to using elements and/or attributes to represent concepts in
> an XML document. I am having a "healthy debate" with a "colleague" on
> how much "meaning" should be placed into an element name, and how much
> (if any) should be "filled out" by attributes.
> 
> Below I've identified 3 approaches for representing a concept called
> (pipes separate the "subconcepts"):
> 
> CurrentYear|Budget|Final|Estimated|Amount
> 
> A "related" element in the same XML document might be called (note only
> the first subconcept has been changed):
> 
> PriorYear|Budget|Final|Estimated|Amount
> 
> I am interested in feedback regarding which of the 3 approaches below
> folks have used (whether it was an XML schema or DTD), and also which
> may be best for both constructing an XML document based on database
> contents, and parsing an XML document and committing the contents to a
> database. I am aware of all the "issues" surrounding use of attributes
> (order not enforced, cannot have duplicate names, namespace handling,
> etc.), so my inquiry is outside of those. My personal experience tells
> me that approach #2 (attribute-based approach) is not best practice, and
> there *may* be some issues with tools.
> 
> And here they are:
> 
> APPROACH #1: Element-based approach
> 
> - One long-named element that represents the entire "concept":
> 
> <CurrentYearBudgetFinalEstimatedAmount>999.99</CurrentYearBudgetFinalEstimatedAmount>
> 
> APPROACH #2: Attribute-based approach
> 
> - One short- and simply-named element that represents the most basic
> concept, with multiple attributes to "fill in the meaning":
> 
> <Amount yearType="CurrentYear" amountType="Budget"
> finalIndicator="Final" estimateIndicator="Estimated">999.99</Amount>
> 
> APPROACH #3: Combined approach
> 
> - One more "fully-named" element with several attributes to "fill in the
> meaning":
> 
> <FinalEstimatedAmount yearType="CurrentYear" amountType="Budget">
> 999.99</FinalEstimatedAmount>
> 
> <CurrentYearBudgetFinalEstimatedAmount
> core:amountTypeID="Federal">999</core:EstimatedUnobligatedAmount>
> 
> Thanks in advance for your feedback.
> 
> Joe Chiusano
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton

-- 






 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS