- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:47:01 -0400
- To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@allette.com.au>, "xmlschema-dev" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Just to give some perspective, among the reasons that the schema WG
adopted a subset of XPath was that we (a) wanted to support streaming and
(b) generally felt that having a small, predicatable set of capabilities
for addressing keys would probably admit better optimizations and
generally less implementation overhead in an already over-complex
language.
Also: I personally think that we probably made a mistake to do key/keyref
at all in this round, or to do it in this way. Some members of the
database community told us early in the process of development that they
had a strong requirement for an analog of primary-key/foreign-key, and we
provided this facility to meet that need. At the same time, we knew that
there was a desire for more general co-occurrence constraints, but didn't
find a way to express those constraints that generated concensus in the WG
at the time. Accordingly, we did key/keyref in 1.0 with an intention to
revisit co-occurrence in another release. I suspect we have the worst of
both worlds: my impression (only my impression) is that most database
experts actually feel that you need primary-key/foreign-key across
documents, not within a document. At the same time we've intruduced a
facility that feels temptingly close to giving you co-occurrence, but
without meeting the general need, or (I think) being properly integrated
into our type system.
Of course, I'm just giving my impressions of how we got here, not speaking
officially for the workgroup. Bottom line: there were reasons for what
was done, it was understood from the start that more general co-occurrence
constraints would be need, but I'm not at all sure in retrospect that we
did the right thing to do key/keyref first.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
09/09/2002 07:59 AM
To: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@allette.com.au>
cc: "xmlschema-dev" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: Re: How to reference attributes from list items
> Identity constraints and co-occurence constraints is on the
> table for a rework in coming versions of the language.
So it's only the path and nothing but the path you can use with keys...
Anyways, it's good to hear that some work is being done here. While this
isn't a critical feature and one can of course just include such a
constraint in the documentation, human or machine readable, it feels a bit
strange since the constraint is on a level you would naturally expect to
have expressed directly at the schema level.
--
Eric Jain
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 11:49:40 UTC