[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
Steven Rowe wrote: > > "W. Eliot Kimber" wrote: > > improved. It was (and is) my hope that XML Schema would do AFs better > > than we can do them now for the very reason that XML Schema is not bound > > by the same restrictions we were. > > Eliot, > > What would you like to be able to do with XML-Schema (but can't) that > you can now do with AFs? Is the problem space targetted by XML-Schema > a superset (at least an improper one) of that which is solved by AFs? It's not a superset/subset issue. It's a matter of AFs satisfying a set of requirements that XML Schema today does not satisfy (or even attempt to address). The key thing that architectures let you do is map from a *specialized* set of types to a *generalized* set of types where the generalized types are defined and managed separately from the specialized types. In addition, the same specialized type must be mappable to multiple general types (I am both a husband and an employee). This is different from the simple specialization that XML Schema currently provides, which is simple derivation of one type from another within the same set of types (a single schema). It is also different from importing a set of types into a name space in order to use them locally (what is usually referred to as modularization). For XML Schema to satisfy the AF requirements, I think it needs to do the following: 1. Provide a syntax for binding types in one schema to types in another schema to define "is-a" relationships. The current AF mechanism does this today with attributes. It would probably be cleaner to have a separate declaration type for asserting this mapping at the schema level. [Note that the current AF mechanism, because it is attribute based, allows instances of a given element type to have different mappings for the same architecture, although this feature is rarely, if ever, used in my experience (I have certainly never used it with the expectation that document authors would set the architectural mapping themselves and have never needed this in order to solve any problems I've had).] 2. Provide a facility for remapping local names to architectural names (the "architectural naming attribute" in the current AF mechanism). Again, this can be part of a specialized mapping declaration. 3. Provide a way to formally declare that one document/schema is derived from an architecture (remembering that the architecture is more than just a schema declaration, it is also the supporting documentation that describes the semantics of the types defined by the architecture). This would provide a cleaner syntax that is more direct and probably enable the ability to do more things with the mapping, such as mapping two things to one, one to two, structural reordering, and the like (although I haven't thought about this too much). Cheers, Eliot *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
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
|