W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > October 2010

Re: difference in design

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:35:36 +0100
Message-ID: <672AFF9389D14AF1B93052A3B0D71FAC@Codalogic>
To: "Abe Scott" <abe@xpressionexpert.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Abe,

Michael is no doubt talking about an XML Schema whereas your application 
presumably has a SQL Schema, which through some proprietary transformation 
allows a valid XML representation of the data.

Officially SQL schemas are outside of the scope of this list, but someone 
might have experience with the setup you have.

>From a purely XML point of view, both XML examples are well-formed and at 
that level are of equal merit.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Abe Scott" <abe@xpressionexpert.com>
To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: difference in design


> I'm using this data in EMC's xPression product, which creates an in-memory
> SQL database with the data.  When B is loaded- I only get the first 
> instance
> of <name_address>, when A is used all instances are there.
>
> Can you explain the difference in the two schemas?
>
> The data is coming from a vendor and we have no control over their schema.
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>
>>  Presumably if you think B is invalid, that's because there's a schema 
>> that
>> mandates A, in which case you can explain why it is invalid by explaining
>> how it violates the schema.
>>
>> Or are you simply suggesting that you think A is a better design? (Odd, 
>> it
>> feels like a worse design to me, a lot of the structure seems redundant).
>> But it seems very strange that you are arguing about the design of your 
>> XML
>> at this stage, when data is already flowing, rather than having agreed it 
>> up
>> front.
>>
>> Michael Kay
>> Saxonica
>>
>>
>> On 30/09/2010 8:48 PM, Abe Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Exhibit A:
>>>
>>> <identification>
>>> <returned_name_address>
>>> <name_address>Doe, John</name_address>
>>> </returned_name_address>
>>> <returned_name_address>
>>> <name_address>33235 N Main St</name_address>
>>> </returned_name_address>
>>> <returned_name_address>
>>> <name_address>CLEVELAND OH 441245239</name_address>
>>> </returned_name_address></identification>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exhibit B:
>>>
>>> <identification>
>>> <returned_name_address>
>>> <name_address>Doe, John</name_address>
>>> <name_address>33235 N Main St</name_address>
>>> <name_address>CLEVELAND OH 441245239</name_address>
>>> </returned_name_address></identification>
>>>
>>>  I understand that A is multiple rows in the <returned_name_address>
>>> table.  How
>>> would you describe B?  We're getting B back in a result set from a 
>>> vendor
>>> service and I'm having trouble explaining to them why it's invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Abe Scott
>>> Sr Solutions Consultant
>>> Muse Consulting, LLC
>>> 609-836-0570 voice
>>> 801-459-5695 fax
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Abe Scott
> Sr Solutions Consultant
> Muse Consulting, LLC
> 609-836-0570 voice
> 801-459-5695 fax
> 
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:36:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:27 GMT