[glue-wg] XML schema for GLUE 2.0
navarro at mcs.anl.gov
Tue Jun 2 08:54:23 CDT 2009
Another interesting and useful characteristic of a flattened XML
is that it's conceptually SQL tables and relationships rendered in XML.
The various XML elements should correspond to GLUE 2 SQL tables, and the
linkages between the XML elements should correspond to SQL foreign key
An intriguing way to pull all of these ideas together would be to
a REST compliant URL interface for accessing GLUE 2 information, where
interface accesses information in a SQL rendering OR a flattened XML
rendering of GLUE 2. That native SQL or flattened XML content can be
returned to clients as CSV, XML, JSON, or other formats back to the REST
Client request -> GLUE 2 REST ---> GLUE 2 SQL or flattened XML
Client response is CSV, XML, JSON, or other rendering of repository
On Apr 24, 2009, at 9:21 AM, JP Navarro wrote:
> Hi Balazs,
> As others have described, there are several design, implementation,
> support advantages to a decomposed/flattened approach. With unique
> and links between the entities, it should be fairly straightforward to
> compose information into a large agreed/standard rendered document.
> There are also discovery performance and functionality advantages and
> disadvantages to both approaches.
> It seems to me like this implementation approach doesn't contradict
> GLUE2 specification since it describes the same entities, attributes,
> and relationships, although I think you're right that it may lead us
> modify the current rendering specification to include a decomposed
> one. An
> interesting questions is whether we have to have a single XML
> in support of interoperability or if we can support several
> We're already willing to accommodate XML, LDAP, and SQL renderings, so
> why not accommodate multiple XML renderings too?
> On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Balazs Konya wrote:
>> David Horat wrote:
>>> This is the same approach that has been taken for the LDAP
>>> implementation. To make this possible, IDs must be globally
>>> unique. I
>>> support this approach as it lets the implementation to be less
>>> to the technology used and facilitates interaction between different
>> we'd be rather careful going this way. in the past within nordugrid
>> found a common, agreed structure (at that time within nordugrid) very
>> i have doubts that flattening everything will give us better
>> in any case, the issue/proposal worth to be discussed on a phonecall.
>> one more note: the rendering was an important part of the public
>> specification. Turning everything upside down e.g. in xml may need
>> to enter into another public comment period.
>> Balazs Konya
>> glue-wg mailing list
>> glue-wg at ogf.org
More information about the glue-wg