[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joe:
Definately not number 1. I have seen approach #1 when organizations
want to XMLize their EDI. It is ugly and it is a programmers nightmare
dealing with the long elements names. It is much better to break it down
into logical attributes. I think you you want 2 or 3. How about a #4
<EstimatedAmount yearType="CurrentYear" amountType="Budget"
finalIndicator="Final">
I think you could make the case the <EstimatedAmount> and
<Amount> should be distinctive. Also if there are default
attributes, the values wouldn't necessarily be required.
I still think the discussion of elements and attributes
from Robin Covers is good reading!
Betty
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> Clarification: There was some stray text at the end, here are the 3
> approaches:
>
> 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>
>
> Thanks!
> Joe
> Joseph Chiusano 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
--
|
