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 >