OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Holographic XML

You could use an expression as the namespace somehow and let the structural constraints in a schema somehow depend on values in parts of the namespace (values of variables in the namespace, say).
Then an instance could be expressed as having multiple possible values and structures depending on the namespace. 
If you want to stick with present day XML, make more use of 'any' extension points. A slight 3D improvement in a schema language could be to allow an expression or pattern as the restriction in the allowed namespaces in the 'any' and/or allow ranges of namespaces in  each 'any'.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Best regards, Steve 
Stephen D Green
-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L.
Sent:  07/09/2010 4:46:14 pm
Subject:  [xml-dev] Holographic XML

Hi Folks,

Just brainstorming ...

1. Holography is where the information about the 3 dimensions is stored in 2 dimensional space.

2. I've been told by industry experts that if you're not in the 3-D memory business in four years, you're not going to be in the memory business.


Operating in 3 dimensions seems to be something that will be increasingly important.

XML is kind of a 2 dimensional representation of data. How can XML expand to 3 dimensions?


Here are two responses from colleagues:

3-D storage is really only about increasing the size of an array.  There's no additional complexity, only increased space organized differently.

byte [1024][1024] twoD;
byte [1024][1024][1024] threeD;

Notice that the addressing and storage method are basically the same, but "threeD" is undeniably way bigger.

This analogy doesn't really carry over to XML.  You can't "increase the space" or density of an XML document, because it's already arbitrary according to the user's whim.  The only way I can possibly think to carry over the analogy to XML is to increase the "degrees of freedom" in an XML document by abandoning the hierarchy/rooted-tree constraint, and making it possible to represent arbitrary graphs.  (After all, trees are only a special case of graphs)  We can already do this today with RDF and other XML-serialized graph representations.  Notice that unlike 3-D storage, this introduces different semantics, not just another array dimension.  Good for some things, not for others.


I agree with David.  Along the notion of additional "degrees of freedom," check out "Colorful XML: One Hierarchy Isn't Enough" by Jagadish et al.:







XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS