W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > July 2008

RE: data binding vocabulary for XSD

From: Rushforth, Peter <prushfor@NRCan.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:21:40 -0400
Message-ID: <E3942D3EB127854BBBC18511759DD003012DB505@S0-OTT-X2.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply.  I recently participated in an interoperability
pilot project where Web Feature Servers were configured to serve up
GML documents according to a "community" GML application schema.

By "community", I mean one which was defined and agreed to by a group
of participants.

One of the main barriers to interoperability was the difficulty many
participating organizations had in mapping their data to the schema,
since that data was stored in a variety of data stores and served
with a variety of technologies.

A key item suggested as part of the recommendations from that pilot
was to develop a schema mapping vocabulary which could be used to
annotate an application schema giving "hints" (strong hints) to the
service engine as to how to populate instance documents from data
locations.  The recommendation is in 
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=26610
discussed under Section 6.1.

Some commentary on the issue can be found here:
http://www.galdosinc.com/archives/525

I will check out the documents you suggest to see if they give me
any ideas.

Cheers,
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
> Sent: July 8, 2008 09:50
> To: Rushforth, Peter; public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
> Subject: RE: data binding vocabulary for XSD
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> sorry, I somehow missed your post, picked it up from the mail archive.
> 
> > I'm interested in the subject of this working group, 
> specifically to 
> > see if there has been work done on a standard vocabulary for data 
> > binding
> 
> We're not developing a "standard vocabulary" as such, rather 
> documenting common patterns of use of schema, and then 
> putting the patterns into two buckets:
> 
> - Basic - patterns know to work with state of the art 
> databinding implementation
> - Advanced - patterns in common use, which databinding 
> implementations should improve on
> 
> > from xsd to databases, and if so, what does it look like.
> 
> Interest within the working group has focussed on mappings 
> between XML and programming languages, though that use-case 
> is within scope of, and should be covered by, our work.
> 
> > Thanks for any links or comments on the state of the art.
> 
> The test suite, in particular the unpublished implementation 
> report is worth a look:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/testsuite/
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/all.html
> 
> > My perspective is to try to (not re-) develop a language describing 
> > the linkage between GML application schemas and the source database 
> > structures, such that Web Feature Services (an OGC web service 
> > flavour) could be administered using that vocabulary.  I am 
> interested 
> > in what exists to date.
> 
> That sounds interesting, but as I understand it, falls 
> outside the scope of this Working Group which strives to be 
> implementation agnostic. 
> If you can provide links, then I'm sure readers of this list 
> may be able to help.
> 
> Paul
> --
> http://blog.whatfettle.com
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 16:22:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:38 GMT