I'm just playing with this particular XML and attempting to simplify.
It may not be possible.
Richard Knapp wrote:
>
> >Another point:
> >
> >Why not just put person inside instrument? After all you allow no
> >more than a person per instrument. Or do you see a complex and
> >non-one-to-one relationship between person, role and instrument?
>
> Not true. It is within the problem domain to allow for trade-offs at positions.
How is that helped by Devin's format, hurt by having Person within
Instrument?
A new set of people would certainly have to occur. I guess in one case,
the new
Survey Team block would reassign roles, while a person in instrument
would require
an extra level of tags.
<Survey>
...
<SurveyTeam>
<Member>
<Name>Paul Hill</Name>
<Role>Survey Grand Master</Role>
</Member>
</SurveyTeam>
...
</Survey>
vs.
<Survey>
...
<Instrument>
<Compass>
<Person>Paul Hill</Person>
</Compass>
</Instrument>
...
</Survey>
Looks to me like the need to reassign roles could be supported by either
position
of <Person>.
I notice that Role at this time is just PCDATA, so possible values are
anything.
I certainly would take this further and make sure fixed values include
the name of each
possible instrument, plus at least "Book" or "Sketcher" or something.
I guess I say it another way. What does the whole:
<SurveyTeam>
<Member>
<Person/>
<Role/>
</Member>
</SurveyTeam>
and
<Instrument>
...
</Instrument>
really do? It seems like <SurveyTeam> and <Member> don't provide much
(except for the usual
place to add new future elements) that would not be similarly
accomplished with fewer tags by simply
having a <Person> within <Instrument>.
If there is a desire to allow room for extended tags, elements could
always be added inside
of <Person>.
As I suggested, I'm just playing with the various tags by asking if they
are necessary.
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST