locked
Any Transformation from XSD to MSchema

    Question

  • Hi there,

    looking at the current bits i can see a transform from M to XML.
    But what seems to be missing is a transform from (XSD+XML) => M Schema + M

    Any plans for this?

    I think you need to support this scenario as most metadata (or models as you call them)
    is now encoded as XML

    Thanks

    Tim
    Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:22 PM

Answers

  • Tim,

    There is no tool at this time. However, a number of the people who work on M used to work on XML, so this is a scenario that is important to us. If I get any additional information, I'll update this post.

    Thanks for the feedback and your interest!

    David
    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:23 PM

All replies

  • Timothy--sorry for the delay in acknowledging your post and working on a response. As you might have seen, we just got the next CTP out which was occupying our energies. Anyway, thanks for your patience as I get an answer for you.

    .Kraig
    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:07 PM
    Owner
  • Tim,

    There is no tool at this time. However, a number of the people who work on M used to work on XML, so this is a scenario that is important to us. If I get any additional information, I'll update this post.

    Thanks for the feedback and your interest!

    David
    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:23 PM
  • David is exactly right.

    In fact you've inspired me to blog a bit about it in more detail. http://tinyfinger.blogspot.com/2009/05/m-interop-with-xml-and-others.html.
    -- pinky --/ http://www.tinyfinger.com/
    Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:25 PM
  • Hey Pinky,

    thank you for taking care of this and even blogging ;-).

    Quote:
    >>We also think about interop at the schema level. For example, if we transform an MGraph to XML, then wouldn't it be great to transform the representative >>schema for that data into XSD? That's something we haven't quite done yet, but again I don't think that it would be hard, just work. We don't really have >>that booked to implement right now. Do people see a huge need?

    I have one thought on this as it is besides the original request probably the second most interesting. Indeed the question arises a bit. I assume when you store to SQL and get it back you can get an MGraph. I Also assume you can get it back directly from sql server in future as sql server can execute .net code. This means that when i have java program i can ask sql server for MGraph of a stored model  and get it back as XML + XSD eventually.
    Why would i want XSD? Well if i have XSD i can generate classes for reading and wrting that xml similar as xsd.exe /classes does in .NET Framework.

    I think you need to support Java, PHP and possibly even Oracle based scenarios in future.

    This is something that can help

    Tim
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:15 PM
  • The 'M promise' is to establish a toolchain and modeling environment that supercedes what exists today. To prove the theory, demonstrating that 'M' can support existing languages (e.g. C#, Java, XML) and models (e.g. UML, XSD) is important. Not to mention the migration and interoperability challenges mentioned in the blog comments here. If my team is building a system in 'M', and they obtain an XML or XML Schema definition from a third party, how do they integrate the external 'model' into the system? Lack of XSD/XML interoperability limits the value of MUrl and M.
    Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:01 AM