Cart
|
[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
 Well, I read you post and I fail to see the disagreement (this happens between me and Len all the time). So allow me to clarify: > > Right now, that information is missing from XML Schema, and > > various code > > generation implementations have their own unique ways of adding the > > information. As it should be? I hope not. > > Actually, I would not want to see that in XML Schema. If XML Missing was the wrong term; how about "rightfully absent from"? I'm not proposing adding anything to XML Schema; there's plenty there already. But people do decorate the XML Schema definitions in order to generate efficient data manipulation objects from them. The nasty is that it's language-specific. What I would like is a data modeling language, similar enough to XML Schema that would generate true XML Schema definitions, yet also include means for mapping efficiently to an abstact OO langauge. > Actually, I would not want to see that in XML Schema. If XML > Schema were > intended as a data modelling language, rather than as a > "foundation" spec > for other XML specs, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But I agree. But there is funcitonality in XML Schema that is absent from any data modeling language that I've seen, so if you took the XML-ness out of XML Schema you would have a decent start at a rich data constraint language, with mutable datatypes. I like. Oh, and you could easily generate a full-blown XML Schema from that abstract model language; and, incidentally, it has these archetypes that model ubiquitous object-model concepts which, when you map abstract data model datatypes to the archetypes, you can generate both a useful XML Schema (or DTD, or RELAX NG) and some object code whose instances represent and manipulate the data model (I guess you'd have to tie-in target data model to target object model somewhere). It would eliminate the need for my skill set, I could find a less demanding work elsewhere, you wouldn't have to read this nonsense, and we'd all be happy. Whee. > > Note, that it is also possible to annotate an XML Schema with > attributes and > elements from other namespaces. You can add application > specific info to the > model to suit your needs in a way that is compatible with other schema > processors (they can ignore your application specific info). Well, it's being done, I'm sure, but also being reinvented everywhere, for every application and every language. When this becomes an unworkable mess (becuase most of us, when left to our own devices, will do it wrong), then we will say: "Hey! There's got to be a better way." And then we can talk about this in earnest once more. The only reason this idea hasn't succeeded in the database world, IMHO, is that the object and relational models are too different to map the two automagically. Hierarchical data models simplify the problem much, methinks. > You can also do > this with RELAX NG. This is a sound approach, IMHO, to let > users extend the > model in useful ways without the core XML Schema grammar having to > accomodate everyone's use case. Yeah, but even in the data model I vaguely envision, you wouldn't pay for what you didn't use. I think that's a pattern, even. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
