Re: "Multiple" Namespaces? (but NOT for HTML)
Many thanks for resuscitating this topic, and for the reassurance that the relative paucity of responses was not indicative of it's overall relevance to this list. I'm glad to have the chance to flesh this out further, so the reply below will address the matter along three lines: 1. to clarify, per the request, "why" multiple namespaces 2. to address/question the applicability of architectural forms 3. to present the possible solution we're considering viz. our initial investment in Oracle, and corresponding prescription to work with open standards. 4. offer a response to W. Underwood's reply On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Paul Prescod wrote: > Let me first suggest that the solution to your problem is probably not > to put various element type names in one tag. I could be wrong on this > point so I'll trust you to set me straight if that's the case. > > > <DC:Creator GILS:Originator TEI:docAuthor>Tillich</DC:Creator > > GILS:Originator TEI:docAuthor> > > Now you've said explicitly that your goal is to avoid duplicating the > data in your documents in multiple documents. But is duplicating the > semantic "author" better? Here it is likely I've not clarified the rationale. I'll try metaphor since my generalization also ran aground on TEI-L in this relation. At the same time, this is the best case I can make for Paul's point: > If you can convince me that you really need > multiple element type names *in each and every tag* then you will be the > first to do so. <GoalScenario> Heinrich at Humboldt U. in Berlin is dilligently searching the world's various library resources with his Dublin-Core-Based engine for <Creator>Tillich</Creator> and we want his DC system to transparently find the wealth of Tillich articles we'd have online. Simultaneously, Alicia is using a TEI-based search over in Ireland, and wants to find <docAuthor>Tillich</docAuthor>, with the same transparency, and Lu in HongKong has GILS, so <Originator>Tillich</Originator> is the formula for the query. With our multiple namespaces/ArchForms/tagbag (see below) or whatever, everybody is able to use their native search engine which, in turn, is able to find the gems of wisdom sought without any additional tweaking on the user--or library administrators'--end. </GoalScenario> "Multiple Namespaces" was a suggestion I had in offline discussions, which, of course, "can't" be done, so I'm hoping, at least, that the reason for it makes better sense now. > I'm guessing that DC:Creator is *always* going > to be a synonym for TEI:docAuthor which means that saying so explicitly yes, it is, so Arch FOrms does make sense, but cf. below . . . . > in the document is redundant. It causes all of the usual problems of > database redundancy: > > * It increases the size of your database: it will quadruple (at least) > your indexes. Granted, but this would be an acceptable caveat if the goal noted just above is met. > * It increases the possibility for error: authors or data generators > could "forget" to insert a TEI:docAuthor alongside a DC:Creator. Yes and no, since most of our input is one-time only, rather than respeatedly updated or nuanced. THe finished article and record entry is a one-time keying (or XSLT transformed) deal. > * It reduces optimization opportunities because the database won't > cache "synonyms" properly. Exactly our worry. Our initial implementation for demo is with our existing Oracle 8.1.5 (soon-to-be .6, we hope) wizard's work. We've been given the idea of architectural forms in the context of the same discussion wherein mult namespaces was raised. Here I am willing to learn that my ignorance of Arch Forms has caused me to to sell the solution short, esp. cf. Paul's comment in his closing para: <snip> > There is hope, however. "Out of line" architectural forms are about to > be reinvented as "archetypes." Once they are reinvented in a syntax that > is OO-friendly and W3C approved, it will become obvious that people will > need to do XPath-like queries based not only on element types, but also > on archetypes. Finally, search engine vendors are likely to "get it." </snip> My responses/questions/concerns on Arch forms were as follows- 1. as it is an SGML subset standard, our "standards" caveat is ostensibly met, but-- per the <snip> above-- it seems not necessarily "happy" with XML -- or I'm misreading you? At any rate as ISO 10744:1997, AAnnex A.3 it seems very viable . .. . except-- cf. caveats 2 and 3 below: 2. Will Arch forms work with our Oracle investment to date (we're considering SIM and related technology for our next Phase)? 3. Re: > Old fashioned SGML smelly-ness aside, architectural forms were designed > to solve exactly this problem. Proponents claim that one of their great > virtues is that they allow you to do the mapping in EITHER the document > (duplicating data) OR the DTD (centralizing it). I'm not really happy > with the fact that it allows the "inline" mode, but the "centralized" > mode is just what you need. Will this mechanism achieve the transparency for our users in diaspora referred to above--and hopefully I made better sense this time--in the <GoalScenario> section? Because we discussed using attributes for teh different synonymous--or largely so-- tags like docAuthor/Creator/Originator, etc., but we were under the impression that, per below as well, attributes wouldn't achieve our implementation of transparent accessibility. The obvious bottom line is the transparency, in the end, the software required, legacy investment or none-- is secondary to this requirement, given that we are implementing an open/int'l standard. If we must write some "in between" script or program gizmo to make it transparent with arch forms, then we're good to go, and are subsequently seeking suggestions along these lines, and want to be sure that we are working with the right database software to do so (proprietary solutions which Oracle--or anyone else--may provide are obviated by the charge of our grant). ------One suggestion we're considering--------- Put our initial stash of MARC records, via my XSLT work and such, into --say-- Dublin Core for the Oracle database to store, and then construct an XML document which is a tagbag of empty elements with attributes which equivocate that the Dublin Core Creator is the same as TEI docAuthor, etc. This sounds like Arch. Forms, in a way, but--as noted--I'm not convinced I fully grok arch forms anyway. How does htis figure into your points above, and following below? > Architectural forms are expressed as attributes but they are supposed to > be INTERPRETED by an architectural processor (like nsgmls and jade) as > if they were element type names (generic identifiers). The syntax is, This, then, if true for transparency, would then still need to pass the question in #2 just above, will it work with Oracle? Corresponding, then, to Paul's summation below: > I claim then, that what you need is a database that understands either > architectural forms or some similar technology. It would index in terms > of synonyms and recognize that asking for one synonym is as easy as > asking for another. As far as I know, architectural form indexing and > caching has never been implemented in a large-scale (multi-gigabyte) XML > database system but I could be wrong. We're more than willing--and are largely bound as well--to trudge forth and do so in uncharted waters, but hence my many questions, and also considerations of SIM, etc., etc. On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Walter Underwood wrote: > Our search engine handles multiple DTDs by mapping the elements > into common search meta data elements. > > DC:Creator -> author > GILS:Originator -> author > TEI:docAuthor -> author > > and so on. So the documents can remain legal and "pure" with > respect to TEI or GILS, but users can search them with a > common model. This is also not unlike what we're considering, but it sounds from your post like it enables folks to come to your search engine and do these multiple search types via the common mapping you've set up, wherein, per the <GoalScenario> above, we want folks to be able to do this with their existing native search system. > > And I like the idea of "Creator is Tillich". Shouldn't that > be "Ground of Creator is Tillich"? . .. . . only, of course, if it has the _courage to be_ the Ground of the Creator . . . ;-) thanks both of you!, jr =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-= John Robert Gardner XML Engineer ATLA-CERTR ------------------------------------------------------------ http://vedavid.org/ http://www.purl.org/CERTR/ 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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe 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