Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach
 I think you are right. Regards, Larry Bradshaw At 11:52 AM 8/26/2003 -0400, Mitch Amiano wrote: >pop3 wrote: > >>Thank you for your response, Rick. >>I see RM as a proven best practice because I have seen and have >>reproduced RM proofs. I do not see XML as a proven best practice for >>anything because I have not seen and have not been able to develop XML >>proofs. Perhaps proofs exists that have not been publicized for XML >>document markup or perhaps XML data interchange as a best practice. But >>it is highly doubtful, at least to me, that proofs exist or can be >>developed for XML as a best practice for data management, data >>maintenance, data support, data systems, document management, programming >>(compiled code or interpreted code) or logic structures. > >This thread keeps dangling too close to comparing XML and the Relational >Model, and now XML vs CMM. >Rant: Which stakeholder has "The One Correct" world view? In all >situations, can all information be managed in a unified storage system? >No. Will there often be multiple systems, legacies, and non-relational >sources? Yes. It is common for engineers to invent proprietary formats for >modelling and maintaining information about their designs. Does it make >sense to manage that as XML instead? Yes. They are going to invent it >anyway, and at least with XML I can get editors and specific techniques to >translate the format. Does it make sense to build a relational database >for it? In many cases, absolutely, positively not. Too much work, too >little payback, and it can be done later if and when the understanding of >the problem matures. Does it make sense to allow local organizations to >address local technology needs without conforming to a global data >management practice? Yes. Organizational policy may dictate that "all our >relational databases are managed through our central Oracle support >organization". If it takes six weeks and half a dozen conference calls >just to get the DBA to create a new tablespace for a new customer support >troubleshooting tool, someone is completely missing the point. Best >practices are worse than useless when they prevent workers from actually >achieving real work. End Rant > >>If there are mathematical proofs (set theory, set calculus, etc) , other >>rigorous scientific proofs, or even significant business case proofs ( in >>a rigorous business management sense), then I would really like to hear >>them, and see them presented here, or on a W3C web site or someplace >>public like that. > >The best signal to noise ratio location I can recommend, is the Extreme >Markup site. http://www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/ > > >>Without such I cannot endorse or advocate use of XML for anything other >>than as a markup language, or maybe data interchange. IE uses such as for >>embedding logic in documents, "compiled binaries", "database" or even >>"document management". Nor can I support folks in a CMM or ISO9000 shop >>utilizing XML to any significant degree until they can show that XML is a >>proven best practice, by rigorous scientific proofs. > >XML works reasonably well as a markup language. >I hear what you're saying about supporting CMM and ISO9k shops. However, >I've seen too many shops rife with entrenched bad practices supported by >legacy, political alliances, FUD, and money. Too many to say that >scientific proof is really a characteristic of a CMM or ISO9k shop. What I >suspect will happen is that XML will continue to entrench itself >throughout the infrastructure, and at some point (if it hasn't already >happened yet) people will simply assume that utilizing XML is a best >practice (no matter what the scenario). >>Mebbe I am just dense. Mebbe I just don't get it. >>Thanks again. >>At 12:46 AM 8/21/2003 +1000, you wrote: >> >>><oxymoron>relationally structured data</oxymoron> >>> >>>of course you can represent records, but as soon as you make a tree out >>>of them they're not relational in a database sense >>> >>>eg >>> >>><customer> >>> <name>COMPANY X</name> >>> <town>SOMEWHERE</town> >>> <order> >>> <part>ABC123</part> >>> <quantity>2</quantity> >>> </order> >>> <order> >>> <part>ABC234</part> >>> <quantity>4</quantity> >>> </order> >>></customer> >>> >>>just isn't going to be a relational form as there's no way to determine >>>a priori what the normalised records are. there's clearly 2 tables, and >>>you know that "customer" has attributes name and town, and "order" has >>>attributes part and quantity, but it also needs either name or town to >>>complete the relation and it's not obvious which. either or both? >>> >>>so without some semantics you can't represent relational tables with the >>>natural tree structure of xml. >>> >>>on the other hand >>> >>><customer> >>> <name>COMPANY X</name> >>> <town>SOMEWHERE</town> >>></customer> >>> >>><order> >>> <name>COMPANY X</name> >>> <part>ABC123</part> >>> <quantity>2</quantity> >>></order> >>><order> >>> <name>COMPANY X</name> >>> <part>ABC234</part> >>> <quantity>4</quantity> >>></order> >>> >>>is ok, but then from what i've seen on the list most wouldn't think of >>>this single depth as the natural thing to do. >>> >>>my personal preference (and used day to day) is: >>> >>><table name="customer"> >>> <record> >>> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute> >>> <attribute name="town">SOMEWHERE</attribute> >>> </record> >>></table> >>><table name="order"> >>> <record> >>> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute> >>> <attribute name="part">ABC123</attribute> >>> <attribute name="quantity">2</attribute> >>> </record> >>> <record> >>> <attribute name="name">COMPANY X</attribute> >>> <attribute name="part">ABC234</attribute> >>> <attribute name="quantity">4</attribute> >>> </record> >>></table> >>> >>>and a few minor attribute additions. but again i suspect this is not >>>what most use, but then i'm happy to proved wrong. >>> >>>rick >>> >>>On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 22:52, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>> > <Quote> >>> > Unless someone can show me how XML or an XML only tool set such as >>> > TeraText supports and fulfills RM, >>> > </Quote> >>> > >>> > Are you asserting that one cannot represent relationally structured data >>> > using XML? If so, can you please elaborate? >>> > >>> > Kind Regards, >>> > Joe Chiusano >>> > Booz | Allen | Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>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> > > > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
