RE: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API
Hi Dare Have a look at the XQuery and XPath Data Model document. Both XPath2 and XQuery share the same data model as defined in the document at http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/. You are right that primitive types are the schema primitive types - all the usual suspects - float, decimal, double, datetime and about 20 others. As well, the data model supports sequences of primitive types, sequences of nodes (like nodesets)as well as a single node. A node can be a document, element, attribute, comment... At any rate, it is quite well spelled out in the aformentioned document. cheers Jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Dare Obasanjo > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 7:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > The valid return types from an XQuery query are XML schema types while the > valid return types from an XPath 1.0 query are a boolean, string, > number, or > nodeset (is there one I've forgotten?). So the question is if the > XML:DB API > promotes the results of a query to their own type will they be XPath 1.0 > types, XML schema types or some hybrid? > > -- > THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #59 > I will never build a sentient computer smarter than I am. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jim Tivy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 4:28 PM > Subject: RE: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > > Hi folks > > > > This thread has got me thinking. What is returned from a query > is a value. > > What is a legal value should be defined in the API spec. > XQuery has define > > what a legal value is in their data model doc (see w3c data > model doc). It > > may be wise to adopt this as a valid value in the xmldb API as well. In > > this light, I would use the word Value instead of Resource. > > > > cheers > > jim > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Behalf Of Dare Obasanjo > > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:35 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Jonathan Borden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > > > > > > > > > > > Err, so "addResource" on a BinaryResource is OK _from an > > > interface point of > > > > view_ when "addResource" on an integer doesn't make sense? > Do you really > > > > mean this? > > > > > > Considering that a number of native XML databases store BLOBS > > > including Tamino > > > and eXcelon as well as the fact that a few XML-enabled > databases support > > > storing XML as blobs such as DB2 (XMLCLOB type) and Oracle (in > > > regular CLOBs) > > > I don't see why it should be unreasonable to expect an API that > > > expects to be > > > used by XML databases not to support storing binary resources. > > > > > > On the other hand expecting the database to expect to know > how to manage > > > floating point numbers and booleans is ludicrous in my opinion. > > > > > > > A collection/list/set of integers is a _perfectly_ > reasonable and well > > > > understood entity. > > > > > > Not for storing in a XML database. > > > > > > > What makes this different then a collection that expects a > list of XML > > > > documents each of which is valid to a particular schema, or > a parent XML > > > > element into which you attempt to insert a child element that > > > would make the > > > > XML invalid? > > > > > > Because those are *validation* problems as opposed to *type* > > > problems. In both > > > cases the database knows how to support the types but they > happen to be > > > invalid in the case of booleans and integers they are not the > > > correct type to > > > be handled by the database > > > > > > > > > -- > > > THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #59 > > > I will never build a sentient computer smarter than I am. > > > > >
RE: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API
Hi folks This thread has got me thinking. What is returned from a query is a value. What is a legal value should be defined in the API spec. XQuery has define what a legal value is in their data model doc (see w3c data model doc). It may be wise to adopt this as a valid value in the xmldb API as well. In this light, I would use the word Value instead of Resource. cheers jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Dare Obasanjo > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jonathan Borden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:05 PM > Subject: Re: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API > > > > > Err, so "addResource" on a BinaryResource is OK _from an > interface point of > > view_ when "addResource" on an integer doesn't make sense? Do you really > > mean this? > > Considering that a number of native XML databases store BLOBS > including Tamino > and eXcelon as well as the fact that a few XML-enabled databases support > storing XML as blobs such as DB2 (XMLCLOB type) and Oracle (in > regular CLOBs) > I don't see why it should be unreasonable to expect an API that > expects to be > used by XML databases not to support storing binary resources. > > On the other hand expecting the database to expect to know how to manage > floating point numbers and booleans is ludicrous in my opinion. > > > A collection/list/set of integers is a _perfectly_ reasonable and well > > understood entity. > > Not for storing in a XML database. > > > What makes this different then a collection that expects a list of XML > > documents each of which is valid to a particular schema, or a parent XML > > element into which you attempt to insert a child element that > would make the > > XML invalid? > > Because those are *validation* problems as opposed to *type* > problems. In both > cases the database knows how to support the types but they happen to be > invalid in the case of booleans and integers they are not the > correct type to > be handled by the database > > > -- > THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #59 > I will never build a sentient computer smarter than I am. > > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact administrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ > -- > -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
RE: Preparing for a new update
OK Let me try: Two documents doc1 and doc2. Each document is represented by an repectively InfoSet i1 and i2. InfoSet i1 has a reference to InfoSet i2 via a key or XPointer. In a reference or linking case there are 2 infosets i1 and i2. In XInclude, wouldn't there be just one InfoSet ib which included both doc1 and doc2? Incidently, the InfoSet spec says an infoset can only contain 1 document. cheers Jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jonathan Borden > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Preparing for a new update > > > Jim Tivy wrote: > > > I would suggest that XInclude is an entirely different technology - more > > like an entity expansion. > > It is fine to suggest this, but your suggestion provides no > guidance to the > characteristics of this "entirely different technology". If you read my > reply to Paul, you should note how XInclude is different than DTD entity > expansion. > > The question remains: different than what? My criterion remains > that I would > like to see a functional difference in an Infoset resulting from one > mechanism or another. If the infosets are equivalent, then differences are > merely syntactic sugar. > > -Jonathan > > > -- > Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ > -- -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
RE: Preparing for a new update
I would suggest that XInclude is an entirely different technology - more like an entity expansion. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jonathan Borden > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Preparing for a new update > > > Paul Rabin wrote: > > At 11:36 PM 7/24/01 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote: > > > > >Well assuming the attribute is "xml:include" then this is identical to > > >XInclude isn't it? Seriously, what is the essential difference between > this > > >'experimental linking facility' and XInclude? > > > > Jonathan, > > > > Actually, the attribute is xlnlink:href. And it's a bit different from > > XInclude, since there is no copying or re-parsing. > > > > Ok I understand that the attribute has a different name (that is one > difference). I still don't understand how it functions in a different way. > In specific an implementation of XInclude acts _as if_ the > included document > was in the including document. Copying/reparsing etc are merely > implementation issues. What I mean by saying that they are equivalent is > that the "Infoset" provided by both mechanisms should be the same, if not > please explain how the stored XML Infoset is different. > > This is generally termed "transclusion" and has been long discussed (e.g. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Dec/0318.html) > > Again, as far as I know, between the current mechanisms of XInclude and > XLink the various well known mechanisms of reference and > inclusion/transclusion are already specified. > > Particularly I have no idea what it would mean to be "somewhere in between > XInclude and XLink". If there has indeed been invented a new concept > pertaining to hypertext theory please explain this in more detail. > > -Jonathan > > -- > Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ > -- -- Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ --
Delete this test
> -Original Message-
> From: Kimbro Staken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Implementation feedback
>
>
> Lars Martin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:52:05 -0700
> > Kimbro Staken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why the Collection interface needs setter/getter for
> ResourceType? Does
> > a Collection can not contain different Resources, e.g. DOM
> and Binary?
> > Did I overlooked something here?
>
> It can but this is mainly used to switch what representation you want
> for XML. e.g. SAX, DOM, Text. This is definitely the one
> thing about the
> API that I'm not really happy with.
>
> The use case looks like.
>
> Collection collection = DatabaseManager.getCollection("some db uri");
>
> // tell the API you want a DOMNodeResource when you call getResource()
> collection.setResourceType("DOMNode");
>
> String id = "gladiator-2000";
> DOMNodeResource resource = (DOMNodeResource)
> collection.getResource(id);
> Document doc = (Document) resource.getContent();
>
>
> BTW, do we really need to be able to support mixed binary/XML
> within the
> same collection?
>
> >
> > > The Resource interface should have a getResourceType
> method so that you
> > > can know what kind of resource it encapsulates.
> >
> > sounds reasonable
> >
> > > In Collection there should probably be a
> getChildCollection method to
> > > retrieve a collection relative to the current collection.
> > >
> > > In Collection there is currently a getChildCollections method that
> > > returns a list of Collection instances. This would
> probably be better as
> > > a listChildCollections method that returns a list of
> child collection
> > > names instead of actual collection instances. You could then use
> > > getChildCollection to retrieve the Collection instances as needed.
> > >
>
> Any opinion on this change?
>
> > > In Collection there should probably be a way to test for
> the existance
> > > of a Resource prior to retrieving/changing/deleting it.
> > >
> > > In Collection there should probably be a way to test for
> the existence
> > > of a particular service.
> >
> > Well I see the advantages of dedicated "exists" methods but
> I'm not sure
> > whether they're really necessary?!
> >
> > 1. proceeding you request:
> >
> > if (collection.serviceExists("XPathQueryService", "1.0")) {
> >Service service =
> collection.getService("XPathQueryService",
> > "1.0");
> >service.setCollection(collection);
> >
> > }
> >
> > or 2. current proceeding:
> >
> > Service service = null;
> > if ((service =
> collection.getService("XPathQueryService", "1.0"))
> > != null) {
> > service.setCollection(collection);
> >
> > }
> >
> > Same for Resources
> >
>
> Done deal. null returns on getService and getResource if not found.
>
>
> > > I think that's it for now.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kimbro Staken
> > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > dbXML Group L.L.C
> > > http://www.dbxmlgroup.com
> > >
> > >
> --
> > > Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
> > >
> --
> >
> > --
> >
> __
> > Lars Martin
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SMB GmbHhttp://www.smb-tec.com
>
> --
> Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
> --
--
Kimbro Staken
Chief Technology Officer
dbXML Group L.L.C
http://www.dbxmlgroup.com
--
Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
--
--
Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
--
