[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Schema complexity paper - Was 3 XML Design Principles
Kurt, I wish I could say that I made it through your paper. At the moment though, I'm hung up on the following section : <quote> Suppose that you have two spans S and S' such that for every configuration s that exists with the span S, there is at least one configuration s' in S' such that there exists a transformation T() on s in which s' = T(s). The two spans could then be considered to be congruent on T. </quote> Suppose the definition of T() is that s' is the root element of s. In that case, one can satisfy the condition where S and S' exist for the specified T() and yet not have a congruence relation. This is because the relationship is not symmetric. Am I misunderstanding something here? Thanks, Kenneth On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:30:42 -0800, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...> wrote: > Roger, > > I think to a certain extent that you're applying Ted Cobb's "12 rules > of database design" to XML - in essence, what you've done here is > given in XML a number of key normalization rules. The challenge that I > find when attempting to do is the fact that such normalization can > only occur in situations where there is what I term a low complexity > to the schema (I address this in a distinctly un-user-friendly paper > called <a href="http://www.understandingxml.com/archives/2005/01/information_los.html">Information > Loss and Schema Complexity</a>, which represents some thoughts I've > had on gaining a handle on the potentially complex nature of XML. It's > pretty heavy reading, though I admit that I backed away from going to > a more formal mathematical notation when I realized just how > intimidating it looked). >
|
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
|