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

RE: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?

• To: "PA" <petite.abeille@g...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:45:36 -0500
• Thread-index: AcThMUh+CS6vmuwsRyKDgfsae9HBoQAAb4rg
• Thread-topic: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?

[Comment at very end]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PA [mailto:petite.abeille@g...] 
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:27 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
> 
> 
> On Dec 13, 2004, at 16:39, Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> >> I see. So generally speaking, explicitly "normalizing" the data is 
> >> mostly beneficial for the processing tools?
> >
> > Don't forget the biggest (err) tool of all, however, the humans who 
> > have to work with the data!
> 
> I was waiting for this one... ;)
> 
> >  Doesn't it make more sense to model a dictionary as a set 
> of entries, 
> > and an entry is a set of key/value pairs?
> 
> As far as explicitly spelling-out the structural information 
> of a dictionary element, then yes... on the other hand, I'm 
> not quiet sure if such normalization is undeniably beneficial 
> to "wetware" at the end of the day :o) ... arguably this 
> could be a question of taste...
> 
> >  When you think "set of" in XML, think "child element"
> 
> Good rule. I will keep that in mind :)
> 
> > FWIW, here's what I'd do
> > 	<dictionary>
> > 		<e>
> > 			<key type="...">blabla</key>
> > 			<value type="...">foo foo</value>
> > 		<e>
> > 	</dictionary>
> 
> Interestingly enough, the above is pretty much what I started with... 
> however, my atavistic dislike of angle brackets took over and 
> I ended up removing all the structural information specific 
> to a dictionary:
> 
> <dictionary>
> 	<string>aKey</string>
> 	<string>aValue</string>
> 
> 	<string>anotherKey</string>
> 	<string>anotherValue</string>
> </dictionary>
> 
> 
> > As for e/entry and key/k value/v, that's your choice.  I'd 
> add a type 
> > attribute (leaving it out defaults to "string" probably) so that if 
> > you build xml<->data tools you know what you've got.  I'd 
> use type as 
> > an attribute, since it is meta-data information about the content.
> 
> I'm not sure if I follow this line of reasoning... after all, 
> the "raison d'être" of an element is to provide meta-data 
> about the content... should attributes be viewed as meta-data 
> about the content or the element itself? Traditional schemes 
> (eg XHTML) use element attributes as, well, attributes (eg 
> parameters to the element). 
> Usually, an attribute doesn't define the element content. Or 
> am I misunderstanding something?
> 
> What's the benefit of using an element attribute to define 
> the type versus using a different element altogether?
> 
> <value type="int">10</value>
> 
> versus
> 
> <int>10</int>

With the second approach, how would you distinguish between specific elements?

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
  
> Confused,
> 
> PA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
    • From: PA <petite.abeille@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Next by Date: RE: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Vocabularies for Large Systems - 3 Philosophica lly Different Approaches
• Next by thread: Re: [newbie] Mapping a Map 101?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread