- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 12:08:37 -0700
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- Cc: "Luc Moreau" <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
After having played around with JAB and gaining a better understanding of the problem I am more amenable to the idea of requiring element ordering for properties. I am still not sold on the idea of element ordering in documentElements and without that the generated class methods for Bundle will be a 'bag of hurt'. An alternate idea is a to have a section in the FAQ dedicated to providing ORM implementation-specific tips on how to generate 'nice' mappings. The plugin Curt has mentioned could be mentioned in a FAQ entry and we could provide an example of how to use external hints to JAXB. The FAQ could also contain links to a modified schema that uses ordered elements and is only intended to be used as a source for ORM mappings, but not as a schema to validate against. I think I like the second option best as it allows us to respond to ORM-mapping issues after the WG activity has completed and is a natural way to talk about implementation specific ORM issues. --Stephan On Feb 5, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote: > Luc, > > I haven't tested this yet, but is it possible that the jaxb > "Simplify" plugin could address this problem with jaxb? > > http://confluence.highsource.org/display/J2B/Simplify+Plugin > > It seems (again, untested), that you could use it and specify > some application hints for jaxb ("simplify:as-element-property") > for the attributes that would instruct jaxb to model > each attribute family (type, location, label, etc.) with > its own list rather than bundling them together as it > does by default with choices. > > Curt > > On 02/05/2013 01:37 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Curt, >> >> Does the schema now impose an order on prov "attributes"? >> >> Without order, I have failed to define an object mapping (with jaxb) > that is useful from an OO perspective. Likewise, i have not managed to > define a meaningful ORM mapping. Now, this is my experience with these > tools, maybe somebody has succeeded. >> >> In summary, The problem I encountered is as follows. If there is a > choice (instead of sequence) between say, prov:type, prov:location, > prov:label, all these elements are mapped to a single java method or a > single sql column. This results in non natural code or SQL queries. >> >> Because of this, my preference is to keep these in a sequence. It does > not at all reduce expressivity, I think. >> >> >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:17, "Curt Tilmes" <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> wrote: >> >>> Last week, we also briefly mentioned the PROV-XML element >>> ordering issue, described here: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/572 >>> >>> Are there strong opinions about changing anything (either >>> arguments, or attributes or anything else from the way it >>> is now? >>> >>> Tracker, this is ISSUE-572. >>> >>> Curt >>> >> >> > > > -- > Curt Tilmes, Ph.D. > U.S. Global Change Research Program > 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250 > Washington, D.C. 20006, USA > > +1 202-419-3479 (office) > +1 443-987-6228 (cell) > globalchange.gov > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 19:09:06 UTC