Subject: Re: [Fwd: Implementation of XML QUERY]
David W. has good points here about separation of actors concerning query; the general public exposure for registry contact is likely most appropriate for business-level interfacing, while power-user flexibility, as in adhoc, is in a separate space of use. This somewhat gets back to the 'a DBA perspective' thread. It is difficult to cast an interface that explicitly outlines adhoc query specification that does not suffer from implementation-seep. I believe it is likely a good move to think toward a business-level interface [list_CoreComponents(x,y,z)] for these reasons and for reasons of ebXML business-level buy-in. Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer XML Industry Enablement IBM e-business Standards Strategy 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) email@example.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 01/23/2001 09:45:13 PM To: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com> cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [Fwd: Implementation of XML QUERY] Message text written by Farrukh Najmi > FYI, In my quest for query experts and their opinions I came across Chetan on the xml-dist-app list. Coincidently, it seems that they are discussing this issue of late. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Farrukh, It has come to my attention that you are flogging a dead horse here. Why are we scouring the globe for 'query experts' - whatever they may be? (Will the REAL query experts please stand up - spotlights, drum roll, applause). Frankly, brutally, obviously - this whole debate of foobar query X vis barfoo query Y is totally and completely IRRELEVANT. Can we please stop this now? The concensus I saw was that we should be describing our interfacing in neutral terms, that match the process of discovering information via the RIM in simple english language documentation, then map those to a set of descrete methods that we publish and following that implementors can pick whatever backend datastorage system and querying to make that happen. We have one consistent set of methods for the service API that a registry exposes. Now - Mark Hale pointed out on the TC the other week that his experimenting with a UDDI registry that follows this approach - that this was not enough for him - he needs true ad hoc. Notice Mark is a super-user, notice Mark is using ad hoc to get at all sorts of IMPLEMENTATION specific backend details - cos its his job to be a programmer. That is the whole point. Programmer = backdoor access to internals of registry - probably on a dedicated port via a firewall - internal access. Normal business user - descrete access via industry functional suite of services and API - via public URL and open port. Can we please agree these are two totally different uses. That programmers will use ad hoc query in whatever internal query syntax the particular backend implementation provides. Public users will have the ability to use a set of RIM service API methods that provide "lego bricks" to assemble constrainted querying - and that these will NOT use a query syntax but instead query syntax agnostic methods that provide function + value parameters. These will also allow static business querying of content via business parameter values. This then is not rocket science - but business basic analysis work. BTW - since I've taught University level SQL and have been writing database backend code for twenty years and worked on Oracle pre-processor for C and COBOL, and worked on Assembler level interface to ADABAS, and currently work for a leading vendor of XML searching and querying tools, and have a patent for information manipulation techniques, and currently on W3C working groups. How come I'm not one of your 'query experts'? Can you publish your criteria for what is a 'query expert'? Oh - yes - and can we please ditch trying to use SQL-78 for implementing XML based registry - well you can if you like - but the rest of the world would rather not be burdened with this - its rather like telling Frank Whittle to design a jet aircraft, and then telling him - oh and BTW - the production system will actually use a piston engine - because that's what our mechanics know how to work on right now. Respectfully pointing out the obvious in the hope of real progress here. Thanks, DW.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC