XML serializer (retry due to too large message)

Technical (archive)
21

2006/11/17, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees@rosa.nl>:

Bert Verhees schreef:

Mattias Forss schreef:


Well, I'm no expert on XSD since I never cared about learning it...
but if I go back to your example, why didn't you use xsi:type in some
places, for example:


I don't know if you ever saw this site, I did, it was helpful

http://www.w3schools.com/schema/default.asp

(forgot :wink:

Yes, the tutorials by W3 schools are nice, but most often not as detailed as one might wish.

//Mattias

22

Andrew,

In your example, you have the other_contributors element even when it has no children, but the schema specification says that it’s optional, i.e. <other_contributors> list_of_string </other_contributors> [0..1]. Shouldn’t you discard that element when the list of contributors is empty?

/Mattias

2006/11/16, Andrew Patterson < andrewpatto@gmail.com>:

23

<other_contributors> list_of_string </other_contributors> [0..1]. Shouldn't
you discard that element when the list of contributors is empty?

That's a mistake by me.. I think I was experimenting to see whether
empty lists were serialized out as the empty element (as in this
case) or whether it would discard them entirely. But you are right that
it shouldn't there at all.

Andrew

24

Hello everyone

Good work - and good to see others get into this space. It would be good if we could agree the AOM. Infact I could load Andrew’s archetype which was good! Just had one bug with C_QUANTITY - I need the rm_type_name for my code to run rather than just using the type. Looking at the SCHEMA this is a required attribute on all C_OBJECTs so it should not parse.

The Ontology is so huge I have wondered about having the Text and Description as attributes - it would save a lot of space and I do not think it would complicate things at all.

What do others think?

Cheers, Sam

Andrew Patterson wrote:

25

2006/11/21, Sam Heard <sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz>:

The Ontology is so huge I have wondered about having the Text and Description as attributes - it would save a lot of space and I do not think it would complicate things at all.

What do others think?

Sounds like a good idea as long as the two parts (text, description) of the description items will remain. If more parts are added though, it is not a flexible solution.

Mattias

26

Hi
We can add more attributes safely…which I think is all that could be done without changing the model in a major manner, Sam

Mattias Forss wrote:

27

Sam,
It is only safe if the attributes are primitive types. However I think it would be a good saving considering the current attributes.

Heath