[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why XML Over the Relational Model?
Paul Prescod wrote: > > Good point. Interchange across the time dimension is very important. > People who use a relational or object database for their day-to-day work > should definitely consider backing up a periodic XML dump, just as people > who use XML day-to-day should consider how those other tools can help to > make it updatable, retrievable, searchable, etc. Excellent thread. Excellent. All said then, we have pretty much the same answers we had in CALS: o Better interchange o Better lifecycle maintenance o Closer modeling to some real world structures such as *classical* hierarchical documents o Flexible modeling for non-classical structures (if there are any) o Ability to combine approaches both in the model and in the implementation I agree with all that has been said. During the SGML period, we eventually wrote that hybrid systems for enterprises were idea because of the way people tended to capture certain kinds of information (they like to write in topical based, top forward ways) and because we could keep on using these instead of asking authors to view the worlds as Forms. There were also the advantages that where authoring systems used DTDs to parameterize the user interface, it was very easy to *guide* authoring processes toward required content types, and it was very easy to read the file and determine what was intended (tough to do with a table that spans more than a page as anyone who has seen a dump of a relationally implemented version of MIL-D-87269 can attest to). The markup model using a DTD is a nice middle of the road/practically anyone can learn to write one schema. Relational modeling is certainly tighter given normalization, but it takes more effort. Those who do both (markup and relational modeling) probably do both better as a result. What I like about the tone of the answers to my question: 1. Developers do understand the issues and do understand that the underlying implementation affects most of the benefits, that is, benefits of OOP vs file. 2. Developers do understand the "horses for courses" approach and don't see everything in terms of XML. 3. Developers do understand the benefits of the lifecycle that markup can improve and do understand that exchange is a major plus. Good. Now, one additional benefit of markup as with any system that can use a schema is that the schema/DTD can be viewed as a contract/standard for information usage. Seeing the other thread about architectural forms, we should lookat the role of the schema/DTD in standards processes and artifacts. Many of us have done this and it isn't very hard to see the benefits. However, the introduction of architectural forms to SGML was never completed in the sense that the community applied them or became comfortable with them. Now that there will be alternative schema and design-DTDs such as SOX, we should consider these in terms of standards making. For example, the VRML NG effort is underway and there is a work item for creating a set of XML tags. I have brought this up before but I think it bears repeating. VRML 97 can be seen as a two layer specification. The first layer is node based and defines the properties of the entities as node properties. The second layer deals with the grammar as delivered (aka, the file format). I think it possible that the upper layer could be considered an architecture. If so, then isn't it possible to create standards from which other standards are derived by specifying, in this case, the property set as an architecture for Web3D applications from which the XML tag sets are derived? Therefore, 3DML, Chrome, etc. could have different tag sets, but be derived from the same architecture and therefore be playable in a compliant engine? However, looking at SOX, XML-DATA, etc and being reminded of the work done on the object-oriented MID version, I think it also possible that the same result could be achieved by these means as well given that in the end what is being considered is the fundamental property set which any application of the type must include. Given this, what approach is best for the making and maintenance of the standard? Note I am not asking about implementation, but in the context of creating and maintaining a standard over its lifecycle. Yes? No? Comments? len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|