 |
privacy |
||
|
Hangout for experimental confirmation and demonstration of software, computing, and networking. The exercises don't always work out. The professor is a bumbler and the laboratory assistant is a skanky dufus.
Blog Feed Recent Items 
The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave nfoCentrale Associated Sites |
2006-03-29Modeling the Office Open XML Packaging ConventionsOpenXML Developer - Modeling OOX Packages. I've been waiting for an open forum for discussion of the ECMA TC45 Office Open XML Document Interchange Specification (now at draft 1) and especially the OOX package conventions, apparently a subset of the Microsoft Open Packaging Conventions. Now there’s openXMLdeveloper.org (I hate the name — XML is already open — but love the place). I just posted about my interest in the packaging model and though it would be useful to share that more widely. {tags: Open Packaging Conventions Office Open XML conceptual models data models document processing orcmid}
The package model is a very interesting application of Zip files as containers for more-complex related components that may carry references to each other and to material that is elsewhere. The package allows the essential relationships (and the nature of the package components) to be determined without having to know how to process the individual parts themselves. That makes for some interesting opportunities in document processing and in the interchange and preservation of digital assets. Dennis, I'm with you (I think) on the three-part breakdown, but I'm confused a bit by the choice of words, especially the use of "logical". I know it's common practice to create an abstract model; I think it's required. But I'm just wondering why the abstract model is called "logical". It is about structure and relationships, and, possibly, as you suggest, some metadata. Perhaps, as we've discussed elsewhere, I'm just having a metaphor confusion. But I'm having trouble seeing, say, hierarchy as logic. I also wonder about the persisted model. Isn't serialization just one way to persist stuff? For the sake of parallel construction isn't it better for the persistence model to be named "Package Storage Model"? Great questions. I'm going to ponder these and make a follow-up post, but here is my initial thinking: "Logical" is from old practice in database work and even computer architecture ("logical design"). I could just say navigational [data] model or [navigational] data model (which are still abstract and include notions of hierarchy.) I think it goes back to a logical-physical distinction and is not really logical in the sense of "logical inference." (And then there are "logical operations" and "logical data types"). I will take another look to see if there is something sharper to be done here. I don't think I mean "Storage Model" so I need to think very hard about that one. Serialization may be ephemeral (e.g., as in for transmission whether RPC or something else) and not about recorded digital media. Also, the reference model at this level is in terms of (abstract) ZIP packaging. I'll look at this one again, too, and see what the openXMLdeveloper.org folk have to say, although I think most there are concerned about using OOX and OPC, not conceptualizing it. Dennis, you are correct in the older usage of logical models for datasets, etc. I conveniently put that knowledge aside so I could just ask the question about the choice of words. It may be a good word to use, since it likely has a usable understanding in the software field. The serialization question is an interesting one. Now that I read this again I'm thinking that the logical model exists as a representation of the conceptual one. And finally, on the computers, we have a concreate realization of the logical representation. I think it would be good to, somehow, allow the physical, embodied, datasets to have some kind of self-describing patch sewn on their shirts, that helps convey the model they realize. Maybe that's off base here. But for permanent usability, I'm thinking that some model info has to accompany the stored bits. At some point in the future the bits may be all that's available. (I almost said "readable" there.) Bill, I like what you say here. And I like the last little touch. I suppose it is what is intended by providing metadata with/in our digital artifacts and it is certainly what some see XML as a means to. I always liked the OSI ASN.1 OID method of appealing to some external authoritative source. XML Namespaces can be thought of as a distributed-authority approach to the same problem, given an appropriate community praxis. Heh.
|
||
|
You are navigating Orcmid's Lair. |
template
created 2004-06-17-20:01 -0700 (pdt)
by orcmid |