RE: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API

2002-01-13 Thread Jim Tivy
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: Problems With Implementing XMLDB API

2002-01-13 Thread Jim Tivy
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.
  
  
   _
   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/
 --


_
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