[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Impact of ICG Adoption on CCRIM SC (Was: [regrep]UN/CEFACT-ICGadopts freebXML Registry)
Duane, Parsing Error! I was comparing the "make everything attributes approach" in your example - to the noun XSD that SCM is working on where related content is organized with XPath parent nodes.. If you really think that once people are deploying their own CC registries - that the attribute mechanism is not an open invitation to them to add in their own extensions - you really are dreaming! Every authority out there will find a need to add their own - STEP, OAGi, X12, PIDX, HL7, DOD, GSA, the list goes on. That is interoperability hell - read W3C Schema XSD - where we are right now. Question - why would I retrieve the German fragment - if I want French? Question - why would I retrieve the text description notes if I'm checking the business rules? You completely missed the point about the original intent - and Farrukhs stated path at the CEFACT meeting, which remains to show how the native RIM can support the mechanisms CCTS needs in terms of associative semantics and CC management - since the naitve RIM is highly optimized and should be preferred - rather than tricks inside XML instances with attribute lists. That mapping is crucial. Once we have that - then we look at extending the needs to cover the physical implementation layer - under that logical layer. That is what the SCM noun XSD is focused on doing - augmenting the CCTS/RIM mapping - but otherwise leveraging and relying on RIM to provide the core associative heavy lifting for the CCTS model. DW Duane Nickull wrote: > David: > > The attribute in this DOM tree is NOT deeply nested. Please read the > document!!! Comments inline: > > David RR Webber wrote: > >> Duane, >> >> Yeah - but - if the DOM tree is *not* deeply nested - then its faster >> via >> the DOM tree than having to >> crunch thru reams of attributes trying to find the one(s) that you >> want - >> and that's the rub. >> > There are likely to be only 2-5 authorities who assert the CC > properties, therefore this argument is insignificant. > >> Since its >> not just one attirbute - but sets - and therefore you either have to >> return >> the entire XML instance >> to the requestor - or parse every attribute every time to find the >> complete >> list of those needed. >> >> > Since you need the entire fragment anyways, once again this argument > is not valid. JDOM build 4 ++ supports detach(). > >> Any which way you slice it - that is much more resource intensive than a >> well structured XML set >> that organizes the components so you can descreetly retrieve just >> what you >> want. >> > It is a well structured XML set that allows people to detach() only > the branch they need. Please read the document. > >> You can also use >> IDRefs to make it even faster against the structures. >> >> > Only if the original ID is held into the DOM and also the entire IDREF > capable branch is also loaded. Even then, it is arguably a minor > advantage (see XML-dev list from about 2001 Nov). > >> Not to mention that given the use cases you can return functional >> sets of >> related information - just >> like we currently do with RIM - but now this is noun-centric >> optimization. >> >> > ARGGhG!!!! The only thing worse than loading one DOM tree into memory > would be to have to load two and also be dependent on a registry being > available AND incur network lag. Combined, this would make it at > least 5 to 100 times slower. > > It is obvious by this comment that you have also not read the document. > Please read it. > > Duane >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]