No You are not alone. A schema based approach is
exactly what I was contemplating. Lets kick it around
some more next year.

Cheers !
<bruceb/>

--- Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> There are 3 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Firebird and XML
> From: "bruce_bacheller"
> <bruce_bacheller@...>
> 2. XML *IN* Firebird
> From: Lester Caine <lester@...>
> 3. Re: Returning generated key was Re: Re:
> Indexed Views
> From: "Ivan Prenosil"
> <Ivan.Prenosil@...>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________

>

________________________________________________________________________

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:28:26 -0000
> From: "bruce_bacheller"
> <bruce_bacheller@...>
> Subject: Re: Firebird and XML
>
>
> Thanks Lester,
> In the whole I would agree. I would say if you were
> some how
> transforming and presenting that data in a unique
> xml based way then
> the process "could" be licensable. But if you are
> talking about the
> data that was converted to xml from a public
> sponsored source as you
> described then I am in total agreement with you.
> Thanks for exposing
> me to an issue I hadn't actually encountered before.
> It raises some interesting issues for the Service
> Oriented
> Architecture Movement as well.
>
> Cheers !
> <b2/>
>
> --- In Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com, Lester
> Caine <lester@l...>
> wrote:
> > bruce_bacheller wrote:
> >
> > > So Lester it's the private companies that are
> putting the 'tax" on XML
> > > data exchange because they have in some way
> enhanced it ?
> >
> > They claim to be enhancing it. The enhancements
> are not needed for the
> > main job, for example identifying a property, but
> you have to pay for
> > the bells and whistles just to get hold of the
> public domain grunt -
> > because they have 'bought the rights to distribute
> it'. The public
> > domain stuff is not currently being made
> available, only via third
> party
> > 'suppliers'.
> >
> > > Are they doing any value added services like
> transformation or
> > > mapping or are they just gouging for some xml
> bits ?
> >
> > A better example would be another software patent.
> They 'thought of it
> > first' and so claim copyright on it, even though
> the real
> 'invention' is
> > public domain. There is no problem my taking a
> customers data, and
> > transforming it to the correct eGov defined
> structure, which is what we
> > do, but then I have to prove that we started from
> existing data,
> because
> > a lot of the 'proprietary' stuff is also posted
> round with licences
> > attached.
> >
> > Helen's comment was that someone had to key the
> information in. I am
> > just saying that the keying has already been done
> and paid for, so
> > government offices and local councils shouldn't
> have to pay for it
> > again. We can work with what they ( and WE ) have
> already paid for.
> It's
> > a bit like taking the list of country codes, and
> then charging for it
> > 'because you had to copy it from another machine'.
> Your time should be
> > paid for, but not annual licences to carry on
> using data that was not
> > yours in the first place. Creating an XML version
> of that data should
> > not be a licensable activity.
> >
> > --
> > Lester Caine
> > -----------------------------
> > L.S.Caine Electronic Services
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________

>

________________________________________________________________________

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:33:12 +0000
> From: Lester Caine <lester@...>
> Subject: XML *IN* Firebird
>
> The job for the new year is to make a better
> interface to the XML
> schemas that I am being asked to process. Having
> already established
> that we do not want to store raw data as an
> unprocessed flat file with
> all the XML tags in place, the obvious next question
> is "How should we
> store it".
>
> I think the discussion here should be on a
> 'standard' way of processing
> any XML schema such that we can map the information
> into additional XML$
> system tables and be able to rebuild the schema from
> that. (*NOT* part
> of the engine just yet <BG>, but perhaps something
> for FB6 or 7 ). This
> would then provide a basis on which to build the
> data that goes with the
> schema, while at the same time making it searchable
> in a relational way.
>
> As a starting point, I am looking at genealogical
> data. I have a 2000+
> grid of CAINE/HUM PHRIES family history in a GEDCOM
> format, which I
> would like to convert to XML. Both are flat file
> with tags formats, so
> the basic conversion is simple, but there is no
> agreement on an XML
> schema yet for the data, so I am looking at a data
> model to store the
> raw data in Firebird, which can then be extracted in
> which ever way the
> final XML goes. *THAT* is when I realised that the
> architecture of how
> to do it is much more important than the XML.
>
> So the first element of the jigsaw, is probably a
> table of elements,
> with a tree structure describing the links to source
> elements, and
> fields for storing the format and pattern
> information. This should
> perhaps be something that the 'XML Binary
> Characterisation Working
> Group' should be looking into as part of the
> standard, but they seem to
> be having trouble deciding who pays for the catering
> next time they meet ;)
>
> So am I alone here, or am I on the right track. I am
> having fun at the
> moment with the simple matter of managing locations
> in the genealogical
> data. Every event has a location, but there is no
> means of populating
> that location from a location table. *THAT* seems to
> me what is
> fundamentally wrong with XML, or have I just missed
> the trick of how to
> do it?
>
> --
> Lester Caine
> -----------------------------
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________

>

________________________________________________________________________

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:07:14 +0100
>

=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com