[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Picking the Tools -- Marrying processing models to data model s
Not at all. That all representations are not alike is obvious. Getting mammals to agree to use one of them in any context requires a political art, not an exercise in finding a technical truth. Agree to one and go like hell. But the day you make that agreement, you become The Man, and The Man is a bureaucrat, not an artist. Groves. Ack... well many don't like the names and and and ... back to the forum where the Citizens debate. The highest truth is on the bottom of the stack if the test is "last man standing". Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] > And yes, there is one of them [data model], albeit representable in a > thousand different ways, one of the worst ones being through > an OO langauge (as they currently are designed). And I know what your next argument is going to be, Len, and that is not all data model representations are alike. Yes! And I will even agree with you that objects are probably the most a capable of describing all constraints on a data model. But not all constraints are pertinent all the time, for if it was so, what would be the point of XML Schema? (Wait! Don't answer that!) So there is a subset of functionality, encapsulated within objects, that can be easily shared with humans and machines alike if represented in a way that separated it from the rest of the gobbleydegook of what makes up an application.
|
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
|