Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Quoting "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>:
> Consider these three components: 'John', 'Shot', 'Roger'. Clearly,
> these
> carry different meanings depending on the order.
Why put the responsibility on the syntax (order) when you can have it in
the model?
> <message>
> <grammar id="financial-transaction">
> <actor idref="John"/>
> <action idref="Purchased"/>
> <object idref="Smith-Wesson Revolver"/>
> </grammar>
> <Person id="John">
> <age>24</age>
> <address>101 Curl Drive, Columbus, Ohio</address>
> </Person>
> <Action id="Purchased"/>
> <Gun id="Smith-Wesson Revolver">
> <serial-no>3290-4389-12</serial-no>
> <cartridge>3mm</cartridge>
> </Gun>
> </message>
<financial-transaction actor="John" action="Purchased"
object="Smith-Wesson Revolver" />
<Person id="John">
<age>24</age>
<address>101 Curl Drive, Columbus, Ohio</address>
</Person>
<Action id="Purchased"/>
<Gun id="Smith-Wesson Revolver">
<serial-no>3290-4389-12</serial-no>
<cartridge>3mm</cartridge>
</Gun>
of course the financial-transaction and the action is actually useless.
The first is redundant as you need the subject to be self contained and
the action is a term probably defined elsewhere:
<Person id="John" action:Purchased="Smith-Wesson Revolver">
<age>24</age>
<address>101 Curl Drive, Columbus, Ohio</address>
</Person>
<Gun id="Smith-Wesson Revolver">
<serial-no>3290-4389-12</serial-no>
<cartridge>3mm</cartridge>
</Gun>
IMHO, the more independent of syntax the better. This includes
distinctions between elements and attributes for example:
<Person id="John"
action:Purchased="Smith-Wesson Revolver"
age="24" address="101 Curl Drive, Columbus, Ohio" />
<Gun id="Smith-Wesson Revolver"
serial-no="3290-4389-12"
cartridge="3mm" />
>
> I will refer to the above style of design as the
> Embedded-Grammar&Components approach.
If you want components, get rid of the grammar ;-)
Cheers,
Manos
|
