• From: Michael Champion <mike.champion@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:40:45 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
To: <francis@r...>; "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
Cc: "Al Snell" <alaric@a...>; "Jeff Lowery"
<jlowery@s...>; "'Eric Bohlman'" <ebohlman@e...>;
<xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: APIs, messaging


>
> The critical question: by what criteria does one choose to create a UML
> description, or an RDF Description, or a Topic Map, or just an XML
> Schema?

I have an even more basic question: by what criteria does one choose between
different DATA designs?  OO methodologies provide criteria for choosing between
different designs, but as we've brought out here, a good OO design *hides* data
structures.  Are there widely accepted criteria for defining "good" data models
independently of the algorithms used to process them?

The only thing that comes to mind that would be relevant to XML is
Entity-Relationship Modelling.  Any thoughts?

I'm aware of David Carlson's website www.xmlmodeling.com (and his recent book),
but from a quick look it seems to focus on the mechanics of using UML to model
various XML schemas rather than the "aesthetics" of what a good design looks
like. Am I missing something?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Data design methods? (was Re: APIs, messaging)
    • From: Joel Rees <rees@s...>
  • Re: Data design methods? (was Re: APIs, messaging)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• References:
  • RE: APIs, messaging
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: APIs, messaging
• Next by Date: Re: APIs, messaging
• Previous by thread: RE: APIs, messaging
• Next by thread: Re: Data design methods? (was Re: APIs, messaging)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread