[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Interesting question:
1. By observation (personal) very large complex vocabularies typically
get the lowest overall reuse as a complete set.
2. Where large complex vocabularies are applied, they tend to get
broken down into simpler subsets. One might inquire how composable
such subsets are with subsets from other very large complex vocabularies?
3. Even small simple vocabularies will overlap other vocabularies and
then the user has to determine how to factor these. If your example
included a names vocabulary, one has to determine:
a. Cultural dependencies (eg, name order, vary by location and
jurisdiction)
b. Generalizable elements (eg, is name one big field, or three, or more)
c. Are they semantically the same (eg, a business name and a person name)?
4. A single vocabulary used in many ways such as RSS or HTML are cool
insofar as screen or eye-ball budget but as a structure or namespace,
they aren't as effective for indexing and shredding into smaller reusable
chunks that are semantically coherent (in other words, user query friendly).
So vocabulary merging is THE issue. There is the application level
which is portal based, and the language level which is namespace-based
and semantically-entangled.
Any of these approaches works, and all of them fail. They factor according
to users/declarations/semantics.
len
> 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>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
|
