RE: [ubl-dev] Re: Global elements doing UBL a disservice

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Agree with you, David.  I'm saying the same, that XSD can even handle
very well those (SQL) schemas, which also handled very well the storage
needs for EDI in the EDIFACT days (prevailing now still...).
Yet, now there's a likely proposal from Ken that XSD cannot handle 
UBL's infoset, and thus a need for RELAX-NG.  This is what I thought
is both puzzling, and somewhat worrying.

On re-reading what I wrote for that paragraph, I think I might not
have ubl:qualified my pronouns properly.  It probably should read,

"Why did, and when have, the structures of the EDI datasets become
suddenly so complicated that XSD, which can even describe SQL database
schemas, cannot now describe those EDI datasets?"

Thanks.


Just an aside (and please don't take it too seriously;  it's only
half in jest), it's somewhat pleasant to read your mail for once
with a failure to search for the word "CAM"   :)


Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6820-2979
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Tue, 30 May 2006, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:

>>Chin,
>>
>>I'd say it was the other way around - SQL tables and columns are a very
>>simple constrained static information model - hence XSD can handle
>>those quiet well.
>>
>>I believe we are seeing a world emerge where people are wanting to move
>>beyond those restrictions imposed by SQL.
>>
>>Remember too that Codd originally wanted to have extended usage
>>semantics on columns within tables - but had to remove those features
>>so that the computers of that era could perform OK.  Notice that this
>>simple "DBase2" style data modelling has served very well.  However -
>>clearly companies can gain competitive advantage by adopting XML based
>>information handling - as we see with examples such as the Oxford
>>Press, through to Amazon, eBay, Dell and HP to mention just some.
>>
>>DW
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>Sure, I suppose the whole 3-4 year of UBL activities were to "upgrade"
>>the world's EDI from EDIFACT to an XML-based version that offers
>><xsd:import source="advantages.xml">  advantages, it is to describe
>>using XML the abstract value space formerly described by EDIFACT using
>>ASCII strings.  Why did, and when have, the structures of the datasets
>>become suddenly so complicated that XSD that can describe SQL database
>>schemas cannot now describe them?  I don't really know, and I don't
>>suspect that change had happened.
>>
>>