[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: Syntax + object model

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8064843FE@R...>

If you provide a query I will be very glad. I will give you my
requirements:

Given a schema and a tag, I want to find all possible descendants.

Given a schema and a tag, I want to find the set of descendants that must
occur, in any valid instance document.

I believe both can be implemented using algorithms: first is of course
reachability, the second is probably slightly more complicated..

Anyways, what all applications agree to is that XML is a tree
representation of information. I think that is about it..

cheers and regards - murali.

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> To further clarify this point, an XML Schema processor accepts one or
> more XML infosets as input (and an XML Infoset looks a lot like an
> instance of the XPath data model) from which it generates schema
> components which could be represented in an XML serialized form (as
> shown by XSV's PSVI output).
>  All you are arguing is that your application would rather expose a
> data model that more closely represents XML Schema components than an
> XML representation of XML Schema components. I don't see anything
> wrong with this which was the entire point of my analogy with the
> relational data model and customer database.  What percentage of
> applications actually expose the same data [or object[ model as is
> used by the back end relational database or file based data store?
> This is extremely unlikely for any application that uses a
> denormalized relational database.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]
> Sent: Sat 5/24/2003 11:44 AM
> To: Murali Mani
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE: Re:  Syntax + object model
>
> A book is made up of a sequence of characters which are grouped into
> words and clustered together to form paragraphs. Whatever semantics
> one wants to give the words, chapters, etc beyond that is up to the
> author and the reader. A dictionary is a fundamentally different kind
> of book from a bible which is fundamentally different from a text book
> and people read all three in different ways. I don't see why one would
> then disagree over whether the content of all books have underlying
> core aspects that are universal. This clearly the case as is the case
> with XML documents.
>
> As for your request for a query, it wouldn't be easy to write but is
> possible.  I know this because any XML Schema processor is doing
> exactly the same thing to build up its schema components because it
> accepts an XML infoset as input from which it generates schema
> components.
>
> I'd love to provide the XQuery query as a proof of concept but don't
> have the time right now. I'm sure I'll end up sending you one some
> weekend when a free afternoon presents itself. :)
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@C...]
> Sent: Sat 5/24/2003 11:25 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE: Re:  Syntax + object model
>
>
>
>
> Anyways, that is ok. My point is the view given by XPath/XQuery is not
> good for all XML documents, especially XML schemas. I do not want to see
> an XML schema document in this model, it does not mean anything to me at
> all, right??
>
> As I said, I will be very glad to receive an XPath/XQuery to determine
> given an XML schema, a tag A, and a tag B, whether B can be a descendant
> of A in a valid XML document.
>
> I did mention this when your work was presented at Hong Kong last year by
> your colleague, but I will be very glad to see an actual answer to this..
>
> regards - murali.
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2003, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> > I explicitly did not say that. Please reread my post.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@C...]
> > Sent: Sat 5/24/2003 10:51 AM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo
> > Cc: xml-dev@l...
> > Subject: RE: Re:  Syntax + object model
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dare, I do not think you can say that XPath data model is the standard
> > data model for all applications.
> >
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

• References:
  • RE: Re: Syntax + object model
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by Date: Re: Syntax + object model
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Syntax + object model
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Syntax + object model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread