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] Fun With Schemas

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Thanks Ron - I got in too much of a hurry.

john c hardin
CIO - crossconnections.ws
313.930.5323 cell

"The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global 

     Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962

Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
> All,
> One minor correction --- the udefid d.t.2_8 is equivalent to the UDEF name purchase.order.document_identifier 
> In most situations the term "number" maps to the UDEF property term "identifier" but in some situations it would map to the UDEF property term "quantity" - for example number of cases or number of cartons would use the UDEF property term quantity rather than number. 
> Although somewhat out-of-date (e.g., many new extensions have been added to the XML version), the UDEF tree structures can be viewed at http://www.udef.org/specdoc/UDEFv1pt03-July-2003.htm
> Ron Schuldt
> Senior Staff Systems Architect
> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
> Littleton, CO 80127
> 303-977-1414
> ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: john c hardin [mailto:john@crossconnections.ws]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:24 PM
> To: David Lyon
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; chris.harding@opengroup.org; Schuldt, Ron L
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Fun With Schemas
> Hey guys, take a look at the http://www.udef.org
> and http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/
> It is built to cross domains, in a very format independent way, meaning that it 
> can be included in any format as an attribute, for example:
> <poid udefid=d.t.2_8>  is the same data element as
> <buyerordernumber udefid=d.t.2_8> which is the same as
> <purordnum udefid=d.t.2_8>
> d.t.2_8    is literally translated    purchase.order.document_number
> There are 16 object words, and 18 property words, with trees of qualifiers under 
> each word, making it possible to string together nearly any combination, to 
> define any data element concept (semantics and context). It is infinitely 
> extensible.
> ~~~~~~~~~
> john c hardin
> CIO - crossconnections.ws
> 313.930.5323 cell
> mailto:john@crossconnections.ws
> "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global 
> village."
>      Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962
> David Lyon wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 4:13 pm, Rick Marshall wrote:
>>>i must be missing something here. every day i do battle with
>>>translations from one vocabulary to another. flat files to csv to edi to
>>>xml to printer codes to postscript etc. actually i'm a bit over it all
>>>at the moment.
>>Yes me too. I thought you were one of our respected leaders and
>>teachers for the W3C in Australia. Helping and inspiring us mere mortals 
>>that aren't on the W3C to go forward and do useful and interesting things.
>>It doesn't sound very inspiring or rewarding... nothing much in there 
>>for any Uni graduate learning xml on the list and wanting to hit the work 
>>force and do something useful.
>>No wonder the job market for xml is so bad... if this is your idea
>>of W3C XML fun then I think I am going to be sick....
>>>to do what len has suggested you need a dictionary - (not a data
>>>dictionary, but a dictionary) that says an attribute, element, whatever
>>>in one vocabulary is <something /> in another. possibly rdf is a good
>>>way to express this. then you need a translator that can read an output
>>>schema (and produce valid output). then it needs a schema to describe
>>>the input stream.
>>>putting it all together:
>>>1. decide on and maintain internal schema representation for data
>>>2. maintain translator tables from internal schema to output schema
>>>vocabulary (rdf?)
>>>3. maintain output schema
>>>all 3 should be able to be maintained with some independence (actually
>>>changing 1 or 3 only requires a change to 2 - which is the point)
>>>then to use it:
>>>1. convert arbitrary input stream to internal xml schema
>>>2. use schema aware tool (you might have to write this) to load items 1
>>>to 3 above and translate from input to output stream.
>>>i haven't built such a tool yet, but i've done enough of it by hand to
>>>know that this is the correct broad direction for such things.
>>>there are some other problems in the "real world" that linguists know
>>>about only too well. syntax and semantics. let's say you can translate
>>>the vocabulary - does the output go together in the same order as the
>>>input. worse are attributes in the input still attributes in the output
>>>or are they now elements? consider translating the location of
>>>adjectives in english and french or verbs in german etc (and that's just
>>>western languages). then there's the problem of semantics - is this the
>>>correct vocabulary choice in this setting? in australia (queensland
>>>actually) xxxx (4x) is a beer, my understanding is that it's a sex aid
>>>in america....
>>>it would be really interesting to know how those auto translator things
>>>(like google translator) work because they must have tackled many of
>>>these problems.
>>>as an aside. it would be good if there was a sort of xslt that worked
>>>like this. as the xsl gets bigger, it gets harder to know if you're
>>>producing valid output and harder to change the model.
>>>Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:02:24 -0800, Bob Foster <bob@objfac.com> wrote:
>>>>>Generating instances from schemas usually just produces one of the
>>>>>infinite number of instances restricted by certain trivial parameters. I
>>>>>don't know of an example where meaningful instances are generated.
>>>>>If a generated document changes automatically depending on the schema it
>>>>>finds at the time of generation yet somehow contains the same
>>>>>"information", there must be a model of the document that is independent
>>>>>of the schema, e.g., something like an ER model. Then the model must be
>>>>>populated: this concrete entity has that relationship to these other
>>>>>concrete entities, etc. Then there must be a mapping from the abstract
>>>>>document model to the elements and attributes used in the schema. When
>>>>>the schema changes, the mapping must change in concert (and there must
>>>>>be a way to prevent changes to the schema that violate the abstract
>>>>>document model, e.g., changing an unbounded relationship to a bounded
>>>>>After that, piece of cake. ;-}
>>>>Instance traversal is something I didn't touch on but of course is the
>>>>real issue here: what's the data source?  I had assumed the
>>>>application would be traversing some form of relational DB or similar
>>>>and that there was already some natural key structure and
>>>>relationship metadata/data around.  Not necessarily a good
>>>>If not, you need some source of control over the data source or
>>>>complete metadata.  If the data is simple and you control it you can
>>>>just add id/idref pairs to it to get simple hierarchical descent
>>>>traversal.  But if the data's that easy to walk then I'm not sure why
>>>>you're doing this.
>>>>Beyond that you can make some simplifying assumptions.  The easiest is
>>>>something like assuming every element contains an attribute with the
>>>>same name plus something like "Id" appended and that every referring
>>>>element will include an identically named attribute. That will get you
>>>>lattice like graph traversal and many to many relationships. However,
>>>>unless this is also enforced on the data population side it sounds
>>>>rather fragile...  Then again, we do know you have a Schema that can
>>>>be checked at data population time :-)


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

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