RE: [xml-dev] Better design: "flatter is better" or "nesting is better" ?

["Nathan Young \(natyoung\)" <natyoung@cisco.com>]

Hi.

I'm troubled by the use of "better" in this conversation.  Would it make
more sense to say "optimized for X", where "X" is something a little
more specific.

For example, in the vinyard example, if you ask people "which
representation is better" you allow for a number of inconsistent
opinions with no way to judge between them.  The reason behind these
different opinions is that people each have their own ""X" that they are
evaluating and they might not make this explicit.

Even if you ask something as vague as "which representation is optimized
for human readability", it's a big step up.  If you ask "which
representation has the best balance betwen human readability, ease of
moving a picker from one lot to another, and ease of converting this
format to and from a relational database" then you have the start of a
set of criteria for which the concept "best" can start to have some
meaning.

--------->N




 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org] 
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:12 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Better design: "flatter is better" or 
> "nesting is better" ?
> 
> Hi Folks,
>  
> Excellent discussion!
>  
> A lot of important issues have been raised.  I would like to 
> focus on one issue, and then come back to the other issues.
>  
> The issue is this: what are the roles of an XML document?
>  
> As I have been doing with my previous messages, I will make a 
> hypothesis and then invite your critique.
> 
> Hypothesis: The Role of an XML Document is either as a 
> Storage Medium or as a Transport Format
> 
> An XML document may take one of these roles:
>  
> (1) The XML document is a storage medium.  Applications 
> operate directly on the XML document.
>  
> (2) The XML document is a (transient) transport format.  Upon 
> arrival at its destination the data is moved into a storage 
> medium (such as a relational database).  Applications do not 
> operate on the XML document.  Applications operate on the 
> data in the storage medium.
>  
> Questions:
>  
> 1. I believe that these two roles represent the two ends of 
> the spectrum for all possible uses of XML.  (Of course, mixed 
> forms are possible)  Is there another role that is not 
> captured?  (i.e., a third dimension?)
>  
> 2. Peter: I think that XML documents containing 
> presentation-specific data falls under the first category 
> (XML as a storage medium).  Do you agree?
>  
> 3. Doug: you make an interesting point about not knowing who 
> will be the consumer of an XML document.  I suppose in those 
> cases the XML designer simply makes a best-guess on the role 
> of the XML document.  What do you think?
>  
> 4. Joe: you make an interesting point about XML documents 
> that are transformed into another XML vocabulary.  Would such 
> documents fall under the second category (XML as a transport format)?
>  
> 5. Ken: you mentioned the case of XML being stuffed into a 
> relational database as a whole document (i.e., not shredded 
> into tables), and applications operating directly on the XML 
> documents in the database.  How does this fit into the above 
> categories, or does it?
>  
> Comments?  /Roger
>