Re: data model

Haven't there already been several different abstract data models
put foward for XML? Who can say there won't be alternatives which
impact on MicroXML. I did a browser search on
"abstract data model xml" and found some interesting results which
seemed to support the likelihood of changes in preferences over time.
Can't we have parsers for MicroXML which support a variety of data
models?

I'm not sure how visible the abstract data model is when using a
parser so why standardise it such that one particular one MUST be
supported by a conforming parser. What if the parser were optimised
for an API like SAX - wouldn't there be the possibility that the parser
might want to adopt another model to better support an API like
SAX. I also came across mention of 'compounds' as an alternative
abstract data model for XML - may a parser not implement such if
it wants to claim to be conformant? To me one way to handle this
is with conformance clauses. Though I admit the present spec seems
to me to be tightly coupled to the one, single data model so that
might make such use of conformance clauses difficult.
----
Stephen D Green



On 28 September 2012 15:12, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com> wrote:

> Why would there be more than one abstract data model for MicroXML ?****
>
> I could see many concrete models, but why different abstract models ?****
>
> Am I being future-blind?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> David Lee
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> dlee@marklogic.com
> Phone: +1 812-482-5224****
>
> Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
> www.marklogic.com
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stephen D Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 9:36 AM
> *To:* Maik Stührenberg
> *Cc:* public-microxml@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: data model****
>
> ** **
>
> I guess the conformance clauses can be split into two levels though - so
> that some can claim parser conformance to everything except the data model
> (in case there is an alternative data model which becomes popular, etc)
> ****
>
> ----****
>
> Stephen D Green****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On 28 September 2012 14:32, Maik Stührenberg <
> maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:****
>
> I guess in this case, the spec should be split up into two seperate specs:
> one for the data model and one for the rest.
> However, in my opinion that would harm the overall benefit of MicroXML as
> it is at the current state: a self-contained short and feasible spec.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Maik Stührenberg
>
> Stephen D Green schrieb:****
>
> ** **
>
> Would it be feasible for (say, in future) a version of the spec to
> not include the data model? I'm thinking back to the way the
> XML included DTD and how DTD became a bit odd to be in the
> spec once XML Schema came to the fore.
> ----
> Stephen D Green****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Dr. Maik Stührenberg
> Universität Bielefeld
> Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft
> Universitätsstraße 25
> 33615 Bielefeld
> Telefon: +49 (0)521/106-2534
> E-Mail: maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de
> http://www.maik-stuehrenberg.de
> http://www.xstandoff.net****
>
> ** **
>