• To: "Doyle, Michael J" <michael.j.doyle@g...>
• Subject: Re: XML Vocabulary Modeling
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:45:30 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <3D0E38416579D411803C00D0B7AF6B210CF29C78@g...> <f5bzo5clbs5.fsf@c...>

"Henry S. Thompson" wrote:

> I would urge a degree of caution here.  It is _possible_ to do your
> ontology at the same time you design your documents, but they _are_
> two different things.  XML Schema is about documents.  UML is, I
> presume, about ontology.  For small-scale and/or straightforward
> projects, you can get away with doing domain analysis [= ontology] and
> document design simultaneously, but only as long as you take careful
> note when the constraints of the XML tree-structure-with-links data
> model is in tension with the 'natural' domain ontology.

I agree. I haven't used UML, but suspect it is better than XML Schemas
for modeling data.

My best guess as to what's going on here is a bandwagon effect. XML has
got a lot of hype right now, so people see the world in terms of XML,
even if when that isn't the best solution.

-- Ron

• References:
  • XML Vocabulary Modeling
    • From: "Doyle, Michael J" <michael.j.doyle@g...>
  • Re: XML Vocabulary Modeling
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Sharing Techniques: White Spaces in HTML pages by XSLT
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Vocabulary Modeling
• Next by thread: RE: xslt-problem: maximum length of xpath-expressions?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread