Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 2006-05-04 23:10 +0200, bryan rasmussen wrote:
>>I think ISO/IEC 19757-4 NVDL is the mechanism by which we can safely
>>look at XML instances using the view that sets of labeled information
>>found in a single instance *each have their own model* ... those sets
>>identified unambiguously through the use of namespace-rich
>>labels. This is not achievable with the traditional view that the
>>entire instance *has a single model* that is sacrosanct. The real
>>world does not accommodate this traditional view well when trying to
>>accommodate different users' needs.
>I'm actually having some problems with NVDL, because I was having a
>hard time reading in the available documentation how one would handle
>specific common situations.
All in good time ... there is a lot of standardization underway and
we can't get to all the user documentation. I do believe the answers
are in the spec.
>1. Namespace qualified attributes on an element of another element.
>I really can't think of any way one could handle that in a reasonable
>manner, and I suspect that in most scenarios this would be one
>namespace extending another, not a mix of two data sets. But I don't
>this for a fact, just a suspicion.
This is accommodated. NVDL provides for a generic element to which
the attributes are attached. A schema expression to validate the
attributes incorporates the presence of the generic element. The
combination gets dispatched for validation.
>2. propogation of text nodes up from elements in namespace y to
>elements in namespace x, example:
>in this scenario y:y is extending x:x,
But it is distinct.
>and conceptually we assume that they share the text node.
They do not. In the data model for that fragment, x:x has three
children: two text nodes of only white-space, and one element node
being y:y ... the string "text node" is only a child of y:y.
>so when split they should be
>and <y:y>text node</y:y>
I disagree. I don't know of any data model for XML in which text
nodes are "copied" or considered a property of an ancestor.
>I think this is a reasonably common usage but I'm not sure if NVDL
>handles it. I suppose the argument could be made that this is an
>extremely dangerous and dirty usage, and we would not want to automate
>that kind of splitting of data.
On that I agree ... but since the data model does not "split" the
data as you describe, it fortunately isn't an issue for NVDL.
I hope this helps.
. . . . . . . . . . Ken
Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16
Also for XSL-FO/XSLT training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04
Also for XML/XSLT/XSL-FO/UBL training: Varo,Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal