In the trade press, we often see references about how XML “now supports” some particular industry-specific application. The article that follows is often confused, offering some small morsel of information about an industry consortium that has released a new specification for an XML-based language to support interoperability of data within the consortium’s industry. As technical people, we usually note that it doesn’t apply to the industries we’re involved in, or else it does, but the specification is too early a draft to be useful. In fact, our managers will probably agree with us most of the time, or they’ll be privy to some relevant information that causes them to disagree. If we step up the corporate ladder a couple more rungs, however, we often find an increase in the level of confusion over XML. Sometimes, this is accompanied by either a call to “adopt XML” (too often with a list of particular specifications that are not intended to be used together), or a reaction that XML is too immature to use at all.
So we need to think about just what we can work with that will meet the following criteria:
It must make technical sense for our application.
It should be sufficiently well-defined that implementation is possible.
It must be able to be explained and justified to (at least) our direct managers.
It won’t freak out the upper management.
Ok, we’re technical people, so we may have to ignore that last item; it certainly won’t be covered in this book. In fact, most of this really can’t be covered in technical material. There are many specifications in various stages of maturity, and most are specific to one industry or another. However, we can point out what the foundation specifications are, because those you will need regardless of your industry or other requirements.
The XML specification itself is a document created and maintained by the W3C. As of this writing, the current version is Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition), and is available from the W3C web site at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml. (The second edition differs from the first only in that some editorial corrections and clarifications have been made; the specification is stable.)
XML itself is not a markup language, but a meta-language that can be used to define specific markup languages. In this, it inherits much from SGML. The specification covers five aspects of markup languages:
Range of structural forms which can be marked
Specific syntax of markup components
A schema language used to define specific languages
Definition of validity constraints
Minimum requirements for processing tools
Unlike SGML, XML allows itself to be used without defining an explicit markup language in any formal way. Whether or not this is useful for your applications, it has greatly accelerated the acceptance of XML-based technologies in some developer communities. This can happen because of the lower cost of entrance to the XML space. It is possible to adopt XML without learning some of the more esoteric corners of the specification, and development prototypes can start using XML technologies without a lot of advance planning.
Chapter 2 presents the most widely used parts of the specification and goes into more depth on what are the most important items to most readers of this book. If any of the details are of particular interest to you, please spend some time reading relevant parts of the specification. While it is at times a bit convoluted, it is not generally a difficult specification to read.
While the XML 1.0 recommendation defines specific syntactic aspects of XML and one way of creating document types, it does not discuss how to combine components from multiple document types. The Namespaces in XML recommendation, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names (referred to as Namespaces from now on), deals with the syntactic and structural mechanics of combining structured components from different specifications, but is largely silent on the meaning of resulting combinations. For this, it defers to specifications that had not been written when Namespaces was published.
This recommendation places some additional constraints on the syntactic construction of conformant documents. It allows a document to specify the source of each element or attribute by placing it in a namespace. Each namespace provides definitions for elements and attributes. How the elements and attributes are defined is not covered in this specification, so the concept of validation of an arbitrary document that uses namespaces is not entirely clear. It is possible to create a document type using XML 1.0 that has some support for namespaces, but such a schema loses much of the flexibility offered by the Namespaces specification. For example, the document type would have to specify the particular prefixes to which each namespace is bound, while the Namespaces specification allows prefixes to be determined by the document rather than the schema. Alternate schema languages that have better support for Namespaces have been defined; these are discussed briefly in Chapter 2.
Like its predecessor SGML, XML provides a way to define languages that fit the requirements of your application. By specifying the exact syntax of the grammatical elements (such as the characters used to mark the start of an element), it has reduced the effort required to build conforming software—the components needed to extract an application’s data from XML are far smaller and simpler to use than the corresponding components are for SGML.
The additional specifications, which the trade press so enjoy discussing every time a news release comes out, are generally built by defining new languages using the base XML and Namespaces recommendations. These are often documented by schema definitions (the forms that these take are described in Chapter 2) as well as committee-driven documents that attempt to explain how the language should be used. Since every industry has at least one consortium that deals in part with data interchange between different components of the industry (think of doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals in the health care field), many standards take this form. Many of the standards for XML are derived from earlier efforts using older SGML industry-specific languages, and many are new.
This web site contains information on a range of standards based on XML, including general business-oriented specifications, industry-specific standards, interoperable languages for academic research, and general Internet-related specifications.
Information about the Microsoft-sponsored “BizTalk” range of business interoperability specifications can be found at this web site.
The “e-business XML” initiative, or ebXML, grows out of the EDI community, and generally competes with BizTalk.
For general Internet-related specifications, the World Wide Web Consortium is perhaps the best place to look; the working groups there have a broad constituency and the results of their efforts have a high level of uptake wherever they apply.
If all else fails, try searching here for “XML” and various keywords related to your industry (especially the names of major industry consortia).