[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<Quote1>
by focusing on well defined sets of xml structures and their
properties
</Quote1>
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.
<Quote2>
one set might be xml with tags only - no attributes; another might be
xml that is constrained to two levels; etc
</Quote2>
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.
<Quote3>
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.
</Quote3>
Perhaps there are easier ways to reach this goal?
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
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
>
> cheers
>
> rick
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
