RE: [xml-dev] XML Vocabularies for Large Systems - 3 Philosophically Different Approaches

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Isn't that the same as asking "If I have a schema with global elements
defined, would each element be considered as its own separate
vocabulary, or do all of the elements in the schema constitute a
vocabulary"?

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Nentwich [mailto:christian@systemwire.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 4:47 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Cc: Roger L. Costello
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML Vocabularies for Large Systems - 3 
> Philosophically Different Approaches
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
> 
>