ciq message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ciq] Re: Element to Element Linking
- From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
- To: Ram Kumar <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:11:32 -0700
Ram,
Yeah - I'm deep into these trenches too.
Seems to me that once again we have a hotchpotch of W3C engineered
document centric tools that are really not that useful for B2B
integration.
Again - the key for me is understanding from the business stance WHAT
is needed - before embarking on the "how". In our case - seems
like we're hearing need for content linkage, lookups, shared reference
values - e.g. customer account information.
Technology summary
1) xinclude - big issue - cannot deal with fragments of XML - has to
be whole XML + namespaces have to be declare.
2) xlink - complexity issues, control, security
3) hytime - wildly complex - old SGML technology
4) semantic overlay - OWL - this is the Web2 technology - but again -
not really for content - more for definitions, meaning, rules.
5) dumb plain old XML approach - IDref - this
is heavily used in CPPA for example - but makes creating XML instances
tricky for hand editing - and also limits what you can do with includes
and fragments becuase there is no %value% support in XML since the
demise of DTDs and entities... however people have used IDref to
point to shared account information in the past - but content has to be
local inline in the XML - not remote - so that's problematic.
6) Registry-centric approach + REST - this is
OASIS technology - not W3C - so that community is not embracing what
the registry should be providing here - as witness by Prof Asumans work
on combining registry and OWL. Registry does have all the tools
for content management - not just semantics.
Bottom line is - OASIS has to roll its own
better linking technology and get better support out there in Apache
tools.
Examples - for now CAM has implemented its own
<as:include/> mechanism that fixes the limitations on W3C
<xi:include>
Also CAM has implemented Registry based
linking and lookup approach with UID and LID support along with
federated sources and abstraction of the actual communication
mechanism (did we mention codelists, versioning and all those
issues that Registry solves here?). This also permits shared
secure reference information. And its implemented as a layer over
on top of XML instances - so its non-intrusive.
So again - the question is - what are users of
CIQ wanting from the business functional stance?
If its shared secure reference information
content across a community of partners - accounts et al - I'd
strongly favour doing this with ebXML Registry - it has all the
infrastructure in place to do that - and that is exactly what the
IHE/XDS community implementation is doing for healthcare right
now.
It also means you can have an implementation
addendum to the specification with recommended approaches for
communities needs - and not burden the actual CIQ schema with any
explicit stuff that is just doing to be a burden.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: [ciq] Re: Element to Element Linking
From: "Ram
Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, August 17, 2006 5:41
am
To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org, "Max Voskob"
<max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
This is an interesting
article about linking resources. Any ideas
coming out of this
approach?
Regards,
Ram
On 8/17/06, Ram Kumar
<kumar.sydney@gmail.com> wrote:
> XCMTDMW: Element to
Element Linking
> Eliot Kimber, Dr. Macro Blog
>
>
This article is one in series of highly informative discussions
on
> technologies related to XML Content Management. Kimber
writes: What do
> we mean by "linking" in the context of XML
document processing? The
> most general definition is "a semantic
object that establishes a set of
> one or more relationships among
uniquely-addressible XML components".
> This definition is
reflected by the XLink and HyTime standards, which
> provide
syntax and semantics for establishing arbitrarily-complex
>
relationships between arbirarily-addressible things. XLink is
limited
> to the domain of linking among XML components, HyTime
provides generic
> facilities for making anything generically
addressable and therefore
> enables linking anything to anything
via a single standard representation
> mechanism (groves). A link
is a semantic relationship whose meaning is
> independent of how
the relationship is established. It doesn't matter
> how a link
is expressed syntactically in your data: XLink, XIinclude,
>
HyTime, HTML, your own 20-year-old link markup... addressing, on
which
> semantic linking depends, is entirely syntactic.
Addressing is the
> plumbing or mechanics that let you physically
connect things together:
> the pointers. The addressing syntax you
use has many practical
> implications, including the availability
of implementations, the cost
> of implementation and processing,
the opportunities for interoperation,
> and so on, but the
specific syntax you use doesn't affect the meaning
> of the
relationships established by the links that do the addressing.
>
Clear thinking about linking requires that you be able to make
a
> complete and clear distinction between the syntax-independent
and
> syntax-specific parts of linking.
>
>
http://drmacros-xml-rants.blogspot.com/2006/07/xcmtdmw-element-to-element-linking.html
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]