[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • To: 'David Megginson' <dmeggin@a...>, 'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@l...>
  • Subject: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:22:31 -0600

Right.  But then you have to deal with co-occurrence constraints, 
if any.   This is much messier than your approach suggests, 
but you are choosing the right technology:  data objects.

There is an impact on those 'very big XML Schemas' that are 
pushed top-down from committees to local jurisdictions.  We 
use them to bulk-load the data dictionary, then customize. 
The conflict of note will be in the customizations, and 
that is why extensible enumerations (as you say, properties) 
are the best design, and abandon all hopes of global 
definitions throughout.

len


From: David Megginson [mailto:dmeggin@a...]

I'd say forget about classes and make your objects big bags of properties 
(attributes and relationships).  The main advantages of classes for 
object-oriented programming -- code reuse and type-safe polymorphism -- 
don't even apply to simple information representation, so why pay the costs 
of a class structure if you don't receive any benefits?

  There exists an entity A.
  A is human.
  A is male.
  A is married to B.
  A is a biological parent of C.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member