Lists Home |
Date Index |
[Comments at end]
Michael Champion wrote:
> On May 17, 2004, at 10:20 AM, Roger L. Costello wrote:
> > 1. How you structure your information in XML has a tremendous impact
> > on the processing of the information.
> > 2. Hierarchy makes processing information hard! There exists a
> > relationship between hierarchy of information and the complexity of
> > code to process the information. The relationship is roughly: the
> > greater the hierarchy, the greater the complexity of code to process
> > the information (Some hierarchy is good, of course. But the amount
> > of hierarchy that is good is probably much less than one might
> > imagine, certainly less than I thought, as described above.)
> > 3. Flat data is good data! Flatten out the hierarchy of your data.
> > It makes the information flexible and easier to process.
> > 4. Order hurts! Requiring a strict order of the information makes for
> > a brittle design. It is only when I allowed the lots and pickers to
> > occur in any order that the flexibility and simplicity kicked in.
> > Comments? /Roger
> I'm wondering if you haven't rediscovered the relational model? (Or at
> least you've discovered the importance of "normalization" in the
> relational sense even in the XML context). But why bother with XML at
> all (except maybe as a data interchange format) here? Wouldn't a
> relational reporting tool be much easier than XSLT with this data
> C.J. Date gave a speech recently
> 0,289142,sid13_gci962948,00.html complaining that XML is trying to take
> over the world. Maybe he has a point :-) I certainly don't agree with
> all he's saying, but if you are modeling data rather than exchanging
> documents, I would think that the relational model would be the
> starting point until you run into its walls.
> Clearly if flexibility is paramount, order and hierarchy are a pain,
> and there's not much gain *if* you have unique identies for everything
> and the identity is all you need to know to figure out what to do with
> the information.
> On the other hand, if *context* is important, i.e. the intepretation /
> semantics / meaning / processing paradigm of some bit of information
> depends more on where it stands in relation to other information, then
> order and hierarchy are critical. That's where the XML "data model"
> (by which I mean "fairly deeply hierarchical labelled trees in which
> order is preserved", not the InfoSet per se) comes into its own.
This very issue of context is part of the mission of the OASIS Content
Assembly Mechanism (CAM) TC, whose specifications are OASIS Committee
Draft Specifications. The only thing that I see standing in the way of
CAM being as successful as it possibly can be is vendor adoption - as of
now, there are not an adequate amount of vendors (IMHO) that have
announced support for this emerging standard.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
Booz | Allen | Hamilton