[topicmapmail] occurrence abuse ? Was: [geolang-comment] Firstproposals for ISO 639 and 3166 available

[Kal Ahmed]

On Thursday 22 August 2002 10:09, Anthony B. Coates wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com> on Thu, 22 Aug 2=
002
> 10:39:18 +0000
>
> > Do we *really* have to go there ? It quickly becomes an awful mess. C=
an't
> > we just allow XML markup in the content of an occurrence and let thos=
e
> > that want datatyping use XML Schema datatypes ?
>
> No, if you ever want topic maps to be accepted for enterprise applicati=
ons.
>  If you insist that the only way to store a (typed) integer in an
> occurrence is to wrap it in some XML, you won't win any friends among
> anyone who has ever used a relational database.

Why not ? What is the big deal ?=20

I can see the need for data-typing on occurrences and I suggest that usin=
g the=20
XML Schema datatypes that the database vendor community are so keen on se=
ems=20
like the way to go. However, I would say that restricting yourself to typ=
ing=20
strings is going to be a bigger turnoff to the database-heads than a litt=
le=20
bit of extra markup. For example, how would I insert a multi-field record=
=20
into an occurrence...from a database perspective, I may consider somethin=
g=20
like an address to be a single entity that I want to store in a single=20
occurrence, not split across multiple occurrences (losing structure on th=
e=20
way). Therefore I would suggest that allowing structured markup inside an=
=20
occurrence is the most flexible way to proceed.

What makes me uneasy is that there already is a way to interchange data-t=
yped=20
information and we shouldn't ignore it.

Cheers,

Kal

--=20
Kal Ahmed, techquila.com
XML and Topic Map Consultancy

e: kal@techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
w: www.techquila.com