Re: [xml-dev] RE: The real world doesn't have an "other xyz", neithersho

[Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com>]

I believe this book is in order ;

   http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/

And as a former librarian; categorisation is futile, even if often useful.


Cheers,

Alex



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
> I agree with Bruce that "other" sometimes indicates a failure or limitation
> of analysis.
> But some lists cannot be enumerated; sometimes the world changes; sometimes
> categories change; some things are one way in one part of the world but a
> different way elsewhere; some things requested should not be disclosed.
> Gender and post addresses are two things that people expect are quite fixed,
> but turn out not to be.
> And then some "other" facilities in xml are dictated by the unlayered nature
> of xsd and dtds: conservative and slow development and distribution
> practises that are appropriate for base vocabulary elements may not be
> appropriate for code lists maintained on other timelines. If your schema
> cannot track the codelists used, it needs a temporary other for interim
> parking.
>
> Rick
>
> On 11/02/2014 5:00 AM, "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@uspto.gov> wrote:
>>
>> In my work, I've often preached that a Schema/DTD should model the
>> business process.  When someone wants an "other" element or attribute value,
>> it's almost always because the business process is ill defined, sometimes
>> inadvertently, sometimes deliberately.  So long as no one expects very much
>> from any machine processing of the value of an "other" element or attribute
>> (other than recording the value, for example).  Yes, it's useless, but also
>> probably harmless.
>>
>> Still, it's a laudable goal, Roger.
>>
>> Bruce B Cox
>> OCIO/AED/Software Architecture and Engineering Division
>> 571-272-9004
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
>> Sent: 2014 February 9, Sunday 09:27
>> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>> Subject: The real world doesn't have an "other xyz", neither should your
>> XML
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I see many XML instances (and corresponding XML Schemas) with an "other"
>> catchall element.
>>
>> I wish to convince you that an "other" catchall element is contrary to
>> one's objectives and should be avoided.
>>
>> First, a quote from the book, "Principles of Program Design" (Jackson
>> Design Methodology):
>>
>>         The structure of a program must be
>>         based on the structures of all the data
>>         it processes.
>>
>> A corollary to that is:
>>
>>         Data should model the real world.
>>
>> So there is this deep connection:
>>
>>         real world --> data model --> program structure
>>
>> In the real world there is no "other" component: When was the last time
>> you drove an "other car" or purchased an "other vegetable"?
>>
>> So it is wrong to create a data model for a nonexistent real world entity.
>> Likewise it is wrong to write a program component for "other" data.
>>
>> Let's take an example. Suppose we use XML Schema to model the countries of
>> the world:
>>
>> <xs:element name="Country">
>>     <xs:complexType>
>>         <xs:choice>
>>             <xs:element name="Afghanistan" type="countryType" />
>>             <xs:element name="Albania" type="countryType" />
>>             ...
>>             <xs:element name="Zimbabwe" type="countryType" />
>>             <xs:element name="Other" type="countryType" />
>>         </xs:choice>
>>     </xs:complexType>
>> </xs:element>
>>
>> Since the countries of the world are ever-changing, we include an "Other"
>> element in anticipation of some future, unforeseen country.
>>
>> It is easy to imagine assigning a program component to Iceland:
>>
>> <Country>
>>     <Iceland>...</Iceland>
>> </Document>
>>
>> But what is a program component to do when it encounters the "Other"
>> country:
>>
>> <Country>
>>     <Other>...</Other>
>> </Document>
>>
>> There is no "Other" country and so any operation that we might assign to
>> the data would be nonsensical.
>>
>> Stated another way:
>>
>>         "Other" data is not machine-processable. The reason
>>         for using XML is that to enable machine-processing.
>>         But by incorporating non-machine-processable
>>         "other" data one's own objectives are defeated.
>>
>> "Okay, suppose that I avoid using an <Other> element and, say, a new
>> country emerges; what should I do?"
>>
>> Answer: the real world has changed (there is a new country). Your data
>> model must be updated to reflect the real world. So update your XML Schema
>> and in your program add a component for the new country.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> /Roger



-- 
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Info Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
 http://shelter.nu/blog  |  google.com/+AlexanderJohannesen
 http://xsiteable.org  |  http://www.linkedin.com/in/shelterit