BizTalk.org (cannonical model)
Do you have any thoughts about the cannonical model spec at BizTalk.org? To me it seems as a reversal of all the good things that XML modeling can offer and a move toward network database model. Here is what looks very offending to me: 1. All relationships are represented as IDREFs. Apart from the current XML problem, that IDREFs are untyped, this sounds like a very inflexible approach to me. Many relationships can be modeled by subelements. That way you can balance replication and efficiency (checking subelements is a local operation and should be much more efficient than traversing links). 2. All relationships are materialized. By keeping explicit IDREF pointers all the relationships of the ER schema are materialized. This sounds quite alarming. 3. XML elements are not used to model data at all. I.e. only the entity is an element, with no children. Isn't XML's goal to avoid these flat unnested representations? Is it obvious that the cannonical model proposal has some serious problems, or am I not getting something? Thank you Pavel Velikhov xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format