[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Comment at very end]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PA [mailto:petite.abeille@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:27 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2004, at 16:39, Rich Salz wrote:
>
> >> I see. So generally speaking, explicitly "normalizing" the data is
> >> mostly beneficial for the processing tools?
> >
> > Don't forget the biggest (err) tool of all, however, the humans who
> > have to work with the data!
>
> I was waiting for this one... ;)
>
> > Doesn't it make more sense to model a dictionary as a set
> of entries,
> > and an entry is a set of key/value pairs?
>
> As far as explicitly spelling-out the structural information
> of a dictionary element, then yes... on the other hand, I'm
> not quiet sure if such normalization is undeniably beneficial
> to "wetware" at the end of the day :o) ... arguably this
> could be a question of taste...
>
> > When you think "set of" in XML, think "child element"
>
> Good rule. I will keep that in mind :)
>
> > FWIW, here's what I'd do
> > <dictionary>
> > <e>
> > <key type="...">blabla</key>
> > <value type="...">foo foo</value>
> > <e>
> > </dictionary>
>
> Interestingly enough, the above is pretty much what I started with...
> however, my atavistic dislike of angle brackets took over and
> I ended up removing all the structural information specific
> to a dictionary:
>
> <dictionary>
> <string>aKey</string>
> <string>aValue</string>
>
> <string>anotherKey</string>
> <string>anotherValue</string>
> </dictionary>
>
>
> > As for e/entry and key/k value/v, that's your choice. I'd
> add a type
> > attribute (leaving it out defaults to "string" probably) so that if
> > you build xml<->data tools you know what you've got. I'd
> use type as
> > an attribute, since it is meta-data information about the content.
>
> I'm not sure if I follow this line of reasoning... after all,
> the "raison d'être" of an element is to provide meta-data
> about the content... should attributes be viewed as meta-data
> about the content or the element itself? Traditional schemes
> (eg XHTML) use element attributes as, well, attributes (eg
> parameters to the element).
> Usually, an attribute doesn't define the element content. Or
> am I misunderstanding something?
>
> What's the benefit of using an element attribute to define
> the type versus using a different element altogether?
>
> <value type="int">10</value>
>
> versus
>
> <int>10</int>
With the second approach, how would you distinguish between specific elements?
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> Confused,
>
> PA.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
|
