[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Roger,
for the purpose of your question, does a schema that holds multiple
possible root elements (currency lists, financial data, etc. etc.)
count as a "single large vocabulary" or as a "collection of simple
vocabularies"?
The schema I'm thinking of has multiple possible root elements,
but then on the other hand there is element reuse going on...
Christian
> Hi Folks,
> I am interested in hearing about the nature of XML vocabularies that are
> being created for large systems. I am particularly interested in hearing
> from people who have been successful in using simple XML vocabularies to
> implement the complexities of varied data in large systems.
> Allow me to explain further...
> DEFINITION
> XML Vocabulary: an XML vocabulary is the collection of tags that is used to
> markup data. For example, this data:
> Borders Bookstore, 20 Boylston Avenue, Boston, MA, 01320
> may be marked-up using this XML vocabulary:
> <Addressee>, <Street>, <City>, <State>, <Zipcode>.
> This later constitutes an XML vocabulary for U.S. Mailing Addresses.
> SYSTEMS OF INTEREST
> My interest is in large systems, where the variety of data is large, and
> in the nature of XML vocabularies for such systems.
> ISSUE - NATURE OF XML VOCABULARIES FOR LARGE SYSTEMS
> I identify three philosophically different approaches to the creation of
> an XML vocabulary for a large system:
> a. Create multiple, simple XML vocabularies.
> b. Create a single, simple XML vocabulary that is used in multiple ways.
> c. Create a single, large, complex XML vocabulary.
> Let us examine each of these approaches:
> a. Create multiple, simple XML vocabularies
> In daily life we encounter many analogues to this approach. For example,
> the postal service has its own simple vocabulary - addressee, street,
> city, state, and zipcode; a restaurant has its own menu vocabulary -
> appetizer, entree, dessert, and side dishes. I am sure that you can
> think of many other examples. We live in a world filled with many
> simple vocabularies, and (for the most part) we are able to move about
> and function adequately with this multiplicity of simple vocabularies.
> Likewise, in creating an XML vocabulary for a large system one approach
> is to create multiple simple XML vocabularies.
> b. Create a single, simple XML vocabulary that is used in multiple ways
> Consider the XML vocabulary called RSS. It is a simple XML vocabulary.
> Despite its simplicity it is very popular and powerful. Likewise,
> Jabber is a very popular and powerful simple XML vocabulary.
> A second approach for the large system is to create a simple XML
> vocabulary that is used in multiple ways. For example, you may
> have an RSS feed that captures one aspect of the large system,
> a second RSS feed that captures a second aspect of the large system,
> and so forth. The combination of RSS documents is used to
> collectively capture all the data complexities in the large system.
> c. Create a single, large, complex XML vocabulary
> All the complexities of the large system are implemented by creating a
> single, large, complex XML vocabulary.
> QUESTIONS
> Have you implemented a large system? Have you created an XML vocabulary for
> a large system? Which of the above three approaches did you take? I am
> particularly interested in hearing from people who have used simple XML
> vocabularies [approach (a) or (b)] to achieve all the data complexities
> in a large system.
> /Roger
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
|
