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] Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrystandards XML Schemas

If you're thinking of using data binding for working with the data in
applications I'd strongly recommend a Venetian Blinds approach. Most
data binding approaches turn Garden of Eden into an amorphous foam of
tiny classes - which is, after all, exactly what Garden of Eden
represents in XML terms.

Associating the name "Garden of Eden" with this concept of pureed
structure was excellent marketing, but doesn't really give the right
impression. I'd suggest "Element Soup" as an alternative. :-)

  - Dennis

On 10/28/2010 05:31 AM, Lech Rzedzicki wrote:
> Hi all.
> I am now involved in developing the next iteration of schemas to
> standardise information storage and exchange for trademarks and design
> (there is also some cooperation with patent people).
> The current standards (TM-XML and DS-XML) use a venetian blind pattern
> because it nicely mimics OO model, so it's easy to generate classes
> and objects, also it hides element definitions so there's no conflicts
> when processing them. Finally the naming convention (not my idea)
> means that the element names are not reusable anyway.
> Some people are now proposing that we move to "Garden of Eden" design
> patter, but I don't see that as a particularly smart move in the
> context of our domain.
> I have noticed that many of the schemas in the industry, for instance
> UBL have gone for Garden of Eden first and and later reverted to
> Venetian Blinds.
> I am very interested in some thoughts from the trenches as to why one
> or the other approach might be more useful in a committee driven
> standards with contributors from different domains.
> No need to point me to google either - I have read all the articles
> about it [1,2,3] and authored schemas that are in production now both
> ways, but still unconvinced either way...
> References:
> [1] A slideshows on various approaches:
> http://dret.net/lectures/xml-fall08/xsd-2#(11)
> [2] http://www.xfront.com/GlobalVersusLocal.html - schema best practices
> [3] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-schemascope/
> etc...
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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