Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks Ron - I got in too much of a hurry. ~~~~~~~~~ john c hardin CIO - crossconnections.ws 313.930.5323 cell mailto:john@c... "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village." Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962 Schuldt, Ron L wrote: > All, > > One minor correction --- the udefid d.t.2_8 is equivalent to the UDEF name purchase.order.document_identifier > > In most situations the term "number" maps to the UDEF property term "identifier" but in some situations it would map to the UDEF property term "quantity" - for example number of cases or number of cartons would use the UDEF property term quantity rather than number. > > Although somewhat out-of-date (e.g., many new extensions have been added to the XML version), the UDEF tree structures can be viewed at http://www.udef.org/specdoc/UDEFv1pt03-July-2003.htm > > Ron Schuldt > Senior Staff Systems Architect > Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems > 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave. > #F521 Mail Point DC5694 > Littleton, CO 80127 > 303-977-1414 > ron.l.schuldt@l... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: john c hardin [mailto:john@c...] > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:24 PM > To: David Lyon > Cc: xml-dev@l...; chris.harding@o...; Schuldt, Ron L > Subject: Re: Fun With Schemas > > > Hey guys, take a look at the http://www.udef.org > and http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/ > > It is built to cross domains, in a very format independent way, meaning that it > can be included in any format as an attribute, for example: > > <poid udefid=d.t.2_8> is the same data element as > > <buyerordernumber udefid=d.t.2_8> which is the same as > > <purordnum udefid=d.t.2_8> > > > d.t.2_8 is literally translated purchase.order.document_number > > There are 16 object words, and 18 property words, with trees of qualifiers under > each word, making it possible to string together nearly any combination, to > define any data element concept (semantics and context). It is infinitely > extensible. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~ > john c hardin > CIO - crossconnections.ws > 313.930.5323 cell > mailto:john@c... > > "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global > village." > > Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962 > > > > David Lyon wrote: > >>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 4:13 pm, Rick Marshall wrote: >> >> >>>i must be missing something here. every day i do battle with >>>translations from one vocabulary to another. flat files to csv to edi to >>>xml to printer codes to postscript etc. actually i'm a bit over it all >>>at the moment. >> >> >>Yes me too. I thought you were one of our respected leaders and >>teachers for the W3C in Australia. Helping and inspiring us mere mortals >>that aren't on the W3C to go forward and do useful and interesting things. >> >>It doesn't sound very inspiring or rewarding... nothing much in there >>for any Uni graduate learning xml on the list and wanting to hit the work >>force and do something useful. >> >>No wonder the job market for xml is so bad... if this is your idea >>of W3C XML fun then I think I am going to be sick.... >> >> >> >>>to do what len has suggested you need a dictionary - (not a data >>>dictionary, but a dictionary) that says an attribute, element, whatever >>>in one vocabulary is <something /> in another. possibly rdf is a good >>>way to express this. then you need a translator that can read an output >>>schema (and produce valid output). then it needs a schema to describe >>>the input stream. >>> >>>putting it all together: >>> >>>1. decide on and maintain internal schema representation for data >>>2. maintain translator tables from internal schema to output schema >>>vocabulary (rdf?) >>>3. maintain output schema >>> >>>all 3 should be able to be maintained with some independence (actually >>>changing 1 or 3 only requires a change to 2 - which is the point) >>> >>>then to use it: >>> >>>1. convert arbitrary input stream to internal xml schema >>>2. use schema aware tool (you might have to write this) to load items 1 >>>to 3 above and translate from input to output stream. >>> >>>i haven't built such a tool yet, but i've done enough of it by hand to >>>know that this is the correct broad direction for such things. >>> >>>there are some other problems in the "real world" that linguists know >>>about only too well. syntax and semantics. let's say you can translate >>>the vocabulary - does the output go together in the same order as the >>>input. worse are attributes in the input still attributes in the output >>>or are they now elements? consider translating the location of >>>adjectives in english and french or verbs in german etc (and that's just >>>western languages). then there's the problem of semantics - is this the >>>correct vocabulary choice in this setting? in australia (queensland >>>actually) xxxx (4x) is a beer, my understanding is that it's a sex aid >>>in america.... >>> >>>it would be really interesting to know how those auto translator things >>>(like google translator) work because they must have tackled many of >>>these problems. >>> >>>as an aside. it would be good if there was a sort of xslt that worked >>>like this. as the xsl gets bigger, it gets harder to know if you're >>>producing valid output and harder to change the model. >>> >>>rick >>> >>>Peter Hunsberger wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:02:24 -0800, Bob Foster <bob@o...> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Generating instances from schemas usually just produces one of the >>>>>infinite number of instances restricted by certain trivial parameters. I >>>>>don't know of an example where meaningful instances are generated. >>>>> >>>>>If a generated document changes automatically depending on the schema it >>>>>finds at the time of generation yet somehow contains the same >>>>>"information", there must be a model of the document that is independent >>>>>of the schema, e.g., something like an ER model. Then the model must be >>>>>populated: this concrete entity has that relationship to these other >>>>>concrete entities, etc. Then there must be a mapping from the abstract >>>>>document model to the elements and attributes used in the schema. When >>>>>the schema changes, the mapping must change in concert (and there must >>>>>be a way to prevent changes to the schema that violate the abstract >>>>>document model, e.g., changing an unbounded relationship to a bounded >>>>>one). >>>>> >>>>>After that, piece of cake. ;-} >>>> >>>>Instance traversal is something I didn't touch on but of course is the >>>>real issue here: what's the data source? I had assumed the >>>>application would be traversing some form of relational DB or similar >>>>and that there was already some natural key structure and >>>>relationship metadata/data around. Not necessarily a good >>>>assumption... >>>> >>>>If not, you need some source of control over the data source or >>>>complete metadata. If the data is simple and you control it you can >>>>just add id/idref pairs to it to get simple hierarchical descent >>>>traversal. But if the data's that easy to walk then I'm not sure why >>>>you're doing this. >>>> >>>>Beyond that you can make some simplifying assumptions. The easiest is >>>>something like assuming every element contains an attribute with the >>>>same name plus something like "Id" appended and that every referring >>>>element will include an identically named attribute. That will get you >>>>lattice like graph traversal and many to many relationships. However, >>>>unless this is also enforced on the data population side it sounds >>>>rather fragile... Then again, we do know you have a Schema that can >>>>be checked at data population time :-) >>>> >>>><snip/> >> >> > > >
|
