| Author |
Message
|
| sravan |
 Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:38 pm Post subject: Canonical XML |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 104
Location: Charlotte
|
I have the following requirement in my messageflows
a) XML request-->canonize using mapping node--> XML
b)XML request-->decanonize using mapping node--> XML
Can you please suggest me how to handle this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: Canonical XML |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sravan wrote: |
| Can you please suggest me how to handle this. |
ESQL or mapping nodes to change the XML to or from whatever canonical format you've decided on.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WMBDEV1 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Location: UK
|
| kimbert wrote: |
| Please define 'canonize' |
Officially declare the input XML as a saint, as recognised by the Roman Catholic Church  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
I believe what the op meant was map from input format to canonic format...
It is great to have a canonic format for business objects on the bus... however the downside is mapping ... mapping .... and mapping...
And the upside of it is also mapping .... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
And there's not a single canonical format, there's the format your business uses.
I think the OP was looking for an inbuilt method to canonize their XML. Where as you correctly point out, there's just a lot of mapping.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kimbert |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 5542
Location: Southampton
|
There is also a way of formatting XML documents that is called 'Canonical XML'. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n
This type of canonicalization *could* be done without knowledge of the logical structure of the data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kimbert wrote: |
There is also a way of formatting XML documents that is called 'Canonical XML'. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n
This type of canonicalization *could* be done without knowledge of the logical structure of the data. |
Now that's something I didn't know! 
It's a good day when you learn something. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goffinf |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 401
|
There are of course many many cannonical data models each with their own specific semantics and syntax (which can take many forms, XML being but one, COBOL another, Java classes, et al). Most major industries have at least one, for example the insurance industry has Polaris for General insurance and Origo for Life (and another for Health), and there are even generalised and customisable models such as UBL (Universal Business Language). The OP probably works for an organisation that have defined one for their own for internal use (as indeed have the organisation that I work for). As for the comment about '.. mapping, mapping and more mapping' well thats only partly true. In many cases using a cannonical data model means LESS mapping, and in nearly all cases means much less complexity and much greater clarity in terms of data exchanges particularly in the context of messaging and ESB.
The XML canonical model is not a business vocabularly, but more of a methodology for transforming XML instances into a form that can be used for accurate comparison as in the case of digital signatures, so in that sense is somewhat different from what the OP was asking about (although the precise nature of the question is not altogether clear !).
I would suggest to the OP, that if thet are interested in a comon (or cannonical) data model, that they first look to see what is already available within their particular industry sector. There are a remarkable amount of fairly mature standard vocabularies around. If its purely for internal use, it might still be worthwhile adopting and perhaps adapting an existing standard, but be careful not to bind yourself too tightly to its change control/versioning model unless you understand clearly what that will mean to your maintenance budget. If there is nothing that fits your purpose (unlikely), then talk to your data analysts. Not knowing the size and composition of the organisation you work for its difficult to know whether these options are available. But in most cases its better not to reinvent the wheel yourself if at all possible.
Hope this helps
Fraser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
And the upside of it is also mapping .... |
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goffinf |
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 401
|
| Yes I saw that, I [thought] I was adding clarity to an otherwise criptic comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
