[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [set] XSLT, abstraction layers and map problemstandardizations
I said that I would try to write down some concerns about the abstraction level of XSLT for use in defining maps that preserve some semantic relations among data sets exchanged using XML instances. The initial use case involves a transformation between GS1 XML and UBL, or so it seemed to me from looking at the sample application. Other semantic interoperability use cases might well involve transforming to a relational data base schema from XML. Or transformations from a more EDIFACT like syntax to an XML syntax. And so on. While XSLT might allow some treatment of these use cases, it would be pushing its intended range of application. The OMG QVT standard that I mentioned has an implementation in some eclipse modules (ATL is one). QVT certainly contains parts that abstract away to rules that capture the transformation as relations, and so does not commit to a specific syntax or transformation technology. XSLT is, of course, one way to implement those rules for certain applications. Thus the QVT approach has a higher abstraction level that subsumes XSLT as one possible transformation technology. If we are going to build libraries, we might need some way to organize various transformation technologies, including XSLT. Sets of QVT rules might provide some modularity support. However, we might regard connecting up XSLT with the abstractions of QVT as a later project, and then retrofit the XSLTs that are produced in the initial phases of SET to conform with QVT rule sets. So I am not really insisting that we take on QVT initially, but perhaps only give some consideration to what a later QVT refactoring might benefit from when we build up XSLTs. (We can, of course, build importable sets of templates to give XSLTs more modularity. And, addressing David's remarks a bit, CAM could provide a possible way of organizing XSLT templates, and so might accomplish some structuring that would be valuable in a future library of transformational rules, and modules of rules, that we could retrieve from a suitably indexed repository for assembly into a map for some given transformational task.) -----Original Message----- From: Johann Hoechtl [mailto:johann.hoechtl@donau-uni.ac.at] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:25 AM To: set@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [set] XSLT, abstraction layers and map problemstandardizations Thank you David for this explanations. During the call I was interested to hear Dale's opinion that XSLT will not suffice and the mentioned CXF yet there was not enough time to ask further questions. This explains it pretty well. >>> "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> 29.11.2008 04:07 >>> To Dale's point on the conference call. In CAM templates we are using the CXF format of semantics of a schema as an abstraction layer that is particularly easy to process using XSLT. To see how CXF works - simply use the camprocessor toolset - http://sourceforge.net/projects/camprocessor/ and ingest your XSD schema into CAM template. Then under Files / Export you will see CXF as an option. Save to that - and then open in your favourite XML editor tool. Examining that you will see how the information in the schema is laid out using XPath to associate elements and attributes in the schema structure in a way that is simple for XSLT to recurse thru. For example - when you use the View / Reports / Tabular report - all that information is being formatted using XSLT from the CXF layout - and runs to about 200 lines of XSLT. For examples of the actual XSLT - you can pull these from the camprocessor SVN library on SourceForge. But more simply - whenever you use any of the tools in the camprocessor toolset - you are running XSLT scripts in Saxon to achieve all of these - against the CXF and CAM template formats. Basically the CAM template is the human readable WYSIWYG format - and the CXF is the same information in internal machine optimized format. So - in summary - we already have this nice XSD abstraction approach that is very XSLT friendly as part of the CAM specification work. Thanks, DW --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]