Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Just for discussion, here are two *hypothetical* > database systems with a listing of corresponding > datatypes. (no they are real but let's not get > into the vendors). Both of these can issue and > accept XML. Without a way to spec datatypes, > just how good are my chances that the db will > handle the data not as I see fit, but such that > regardless of the db, I or anyone that uses the > XML, will get the same results. > > Doesn't this become an issue for anyone who > tries to spec a common XML document type > for say, ebXML? Are elements and attribute > names sufficient? Today, we have to write > a lot of code to handle this. I don't think > that is a good solution for interop. Your implication, if I read you rightly, is that it's better to use declarative means to ensure this conformance rather than writing a lot of"code". Believe me, I preach this gospel every day. My point is that there is more than one way to declare constraints, and I don't think the way enshrined by XSDL is especially useful, nor do I believe it should receive consideration at the expense of other schemes. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/ DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
