[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: building an object model of a XML schema
Note that I am a fan of object-modeling and object-oriented systems, particularly hybrids for very large implementations. Still, some initiatives don't depend on implementation or if they do, leave the object model to the industry. The assumption is that an application exists or is about to be designed such that one object model should be defined. It isn't always the case. On the other hand, that is what UML is for so this may simply mean UML is the wrong tool. Data-centric design doesn't *of necessity* work like that. There are many data designs that clearly and unambiguously state the data, types, lengths, validation rules, etc. but do not imply a processing model or set of operations. These are typically for sharing among systems that are semantically loose. They result in core-stable/locally-customized implementations. That was and probably still is more typical of document designs, but not all are documents. I can site Federal standards for example, that rely on prose descriptions which would be easily translated into something like XML Schema + Schematron but to imply an object model with operations would be to imply implementation and therefore, would be unacceptable. For that kind of system, one might define in the UML a set of grouping concepts that actually never occur in the data. So, does the case still hold? The case is when a data standard or spec is designed but no implementation. In other words, in the spirit of doing less, UML may not be the place to start. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@a...] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:56 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Ronald Bourret Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: building an object model of a XML schema > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] <snip/> > What if the idea is that the XML Schema is a set of reusable > types, a toolkit that is then included/imported/redefined/substituted > into other application languages? I also haven't > exported a schema out of UML, but it seems to me it > may include classes that such a design would not use. I've thought about this one, myself. I'm in general agreement with Ronald Bourret. I believe in defining the object model or data model used by the application in a manner that suits the needs of the application. The XML document model should be separate, and an appropriate mapping defined between them. The XML can then just be treated as a serialization format or command syntax (or both, in our case). The mapping need not be monolithic, though. If you have reusable types in your application's object model, and reusable structures in your XML documents that have some meaningful correlation to types in your object model, than why not have mappings between the two as reusable modules that can be used by other mapping modules? That's the tack I'm trying to take now with our integration toolset, though I haven't gotten very far in implementation, yet. Note that we don't mechanically generate schemas from UML models. That approach is suitable for some purposes, but we define the two independently, then define a mapping between the two.
|
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
|