Re: difference in design

"Pete Cordell" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.schema.devel
Message-ID <672AFF9389D14AF1B93052A3B0D71FAC@Codalogic>
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" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Kay" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.