[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
It has been stated for some time from experience with large data systems in CALS: 1. Monolithic DTDs failed generally to be workable both in production and in maintenance. 2. Parameter entities bought little but naming sugar for the DTD maintainer 3. Most systems are better expressed in families of definitions with links among the definitions for named relationships (say over containment for a weak IS-A or HAS-A) So, not exactly a new requirement. Some thought modularity was the right approach, but it is only part of it. Modularity bought us smaller table level definitions, but not interrelated tables as are typical of parent/child tables. The issue has been that as was stated in another thread, people have mostly built small XML systems and have yet to tackle the problems of large interrelated sets. Again, and as I asked James and Rick, step back and look at this in terms of very large pipelines of information moving among agencies and consider the costs of creating models that have to be shared and among which, pieces of the data migrate. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 7:54 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars? "Clark C. Evans" wrote: > > Actually... I've found that I can't do anything without > some sort of linking. Even the most trivial timesheet > example is a graph structure, else you have de-normalized > the information. Certainly if you do any relational database > interaction you are definately in the world of graphs, > partial information, and network databases. "Links" are key for any information system and XML is no exception ! Without "links" (taken in the general meaning of the word) a RDBMS would be nothing more than a set of spreadsheets. <advert kind="shameless"> Practical ways to express links with XML is the subject of an article I have written for XML.com [1] and of the tutorial I will be delivering at WWW10, XML Europe 2001 and (if my submission is accepted) XTech 2001. </advert> > Perhaps Rick is on to something here. Are we modeling the "parts" > without looking at the "whole"? Can one truely have a > schema for a single document type? Or must a schema necessarly > model a set of inter-connected document types. Yes, that would be really great to have schema languages that let you describe the links within and also between documents. XML Schema languages seem to focus on single documents and this looks also like a necessary extension ! Eric > By far the most interesting (and practical) thread in months, > > Clark [1] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/10/04/linking/index.html -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
|