Lists Home |
Date Index |
by focusing on well defined sets of xml structures and their
I wish you the best on this effort, but would also like to caution that
many aspects of XML are not as cut-and-dried as your numbers analogy.
Our recent discussions on "document vs. data-oriented XML" exemplified
that, where we saw that one person's document-oriented XML is another
person's data-oriented XML, and there are hybrids as well.
one set might be xml with tags only - no attributes; another might be
xml that is constrained to two levels; etc
What value would there be to labeling these types of XML (e.g.
"attribute-less" XML, "two-level" XML)? This seems to me to be something
that can be better covered by an XML schema design (if we are talking
about schemas here) than a broad classification. IOW, an
organization/agency may decide for whatever reason that they want to
avoid the use of attributes. It also appears to me that the
combinations/permutations of the different aspects here can become quite
extensive and perhaps unmaintainable.
by understanding the properties and operators that are valid on these
sets we can then see the analogies to other technologies such as
relational models, markup, etc.
Perhaps there are easier ways to reach this goal?
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Rick Marshall wrote:
> hi all
> following several discussions we've had lately, mostly on relational
> models and document management i'm going to float the idea - which may
> be covered elsewhere, please redirect me if appropriate - that having a
> taxonomy of xml may help us to understand what forms, and when are good
> for different problems.
> if we take numbers as an analogy (and that's all it is, there are plenty
> of others) they can be divided into sets - integer, real, rational,
> irrational, complex, etc and we increase our understanding and use of
> numbers by developing theorems that cover the different sets.
> it seems to me that xml is as diverse as numbers or any similar grouping
> and that by focusing on well defined sets of xml structures and their
> properties we can get the theorems to improve our use and understanding.
> eg one set might be xml with tags only - no attributes; another might be
> xml that is constrained to two levels; etc
> by understanding the properties and operators that are valid on these
> sets we can then see the analogies to other technologies such as
> relational models, markup, etc.
> just a thought at the moment
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano