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] Are people really using Identity constraints specified in

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

I am trying to unsubscribe but am being unsuccessful in every attempt.

Please remove me from your mailing list.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c@drrw.info [mailto:w3c@drrw.info] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:38 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Are people really using Identity constraints
specified in XML schema?


This made me smile thinking about stored procedure and print-statement
CAM certainly does not have any lock-in on doing that classic
content-merge-output stuff.  It's just another option in that particular

The differentiator vis SQL is that CAM can work directly off an input
XML instance as its content source.  How that XML get generated or
sourced is entirely down to the implementer naturally.

So - that's one way to use CAM - the other way is as a validation tool.
So people can answer the question - does my xml instance here conform to
your business rules?  And if not - why not!

This brings a whole another aspect - where you can publish the CAM
template as the yard-stick as it where for creating valid instances.

In amongst this - you will pretty soon get into wanting to create
dictionaries of element and attribute definitions across schemas - not
just local definitions. CAM supports this via the <CcontentReference>
section of the template - and ability to denote linkage between your
instance nodes and central definitions in a registry.

This then opens up the possiblity to label things in your XML to suit
local usage - but actually refer to the standard name and definition in
the dictionary - thus indicating they are the same thing in reality.

So <billAddr> and <billingAddress> and <bToAd> can all be denoted as the
same, etc.

This also of course works on legacy XML transactions you already have
slopping around out there and now could not possibly change persay.
Just define the CAM template against those instances - thereby
qualifying the actual usage semantic details.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, DW


Quoting len:

Would it be fair to say CAM is a dynamic document generator 
using boilerplate libraries?

That's not perjorative.  We've been building these since 
the CALS days and before.  The difference is we didn't use 
markup as the syntax for functions. (Thou Shalt Not 
Program in Markup: the early ISO dictum that held SGML's 
head under water while other declarative systems with 
better political positions pushed hypermedia to the 
side in favor of more complex solutions and vendors).

So why would I want to use CAM templates over SQL 
stored queries and merge-laden scripted functions? 
I'm reading the document cited in the last email, 
not all of them, so I may miss something important.


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>


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

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