daniela florescu
2015-06-11 02:13:19 UTC
Daniela Florescu <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=910384&authType=name&authToken=IP5T&trk=hp-feed-commenter-name>Dear Mulesoft, when you have XQuery and JSONiq.org <http://jsoniq.org/>, why in the world would you waste your time to specify something that is nearly not as powerful !? Those are standard(s), have gazzilions of implementations, have been tested by 15 years of usage, solve the same problem you need to solve, and are more powerful as expressive power. So why in the world would you start the SAME effort again from scratch ? Especially knowing how hard is to get all the details of XML and JSON right ... (XML Schema anyone !?) show lessDelete
<https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21047189&authType=name&authToken=aRMM&trk=hp-feed-commenter-photo>4hEmiliano Lesende <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21047189&authType=name&authToken=aRMM&trk=hp-feed-commenter-name>Hi Daniela. Thanks for your interest on Weave. We at MuleSoft feel that there is a sweet spot in data transformation that can be achieved by having one transformation language that can work across multiple formats. Our transformation solution not only works on XML and JSON, but also works with CSV, EDI and Plain-Old-Java-Objects. XQuery and JSONiq are both geared towards their respective formats. Regarding the powerfulness of the solution or its completeness we feel that we achieved a very sweet spot, if you feel differently we would love to hear what areas are we missing or what is it that we can improve.
========================================
Daniela Florescu <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=910384&authType=name&authToken=IP5T&trk=hp-feed-commenter-name>Dear Mulesoft, first of all, the XML community designed modules to import/export almost any kind of data formats existing on the planet, and those modules are standardized already among the (very many) XQuery implementations. So? CSV data ? Excel data ? JDBC interface ? No problem !! We can talk to ALL of them. So, no, XQuery and JSONiq are NOT designed for their respective formats ONLY.
As for the expressive power, the only think I can say is... wait and see. Your product is just born. We've seen 20 years of such semi-structured to semi-structured data queries, mappings, and transforms.....Just take a look at the standard XML Schemas: NIEM, HL7, XBRL, etc. With such real world complexity, your simple mapping scheme will hit the limits very, very quickly. And you'll need to extend it. And eventually you'll end up re-doiung the same work we did while designing XQuery.
And honestly @Mulesoft, I don't wish anybody, even my worst enemy, to redo the work that the XQuery WG and JSONiq did. This was NOT fun. That meant talking care of horrendous complexity (XML itself, XML Schema, divergences with JSON, etc). It took us 15 years to do that, and trust me, we were not particularly slow, or stupid. If you are smart, you should reuse that, and not waste your efforts and money to redo the same thing again. There is no fame or glory (nor money!!) in there, trust me.
<https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21047189&authType=name&authToken=aRMM&trk=hp-feed-commenter-photo>4hEmiliano Lesende <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=21047189&authType=name&authToken=aRMM&trk=hp-feed-commenter-name>Hi Daniela. Thanks for your interest on Weave. We at MuleSoft feel that there is a sweet spot in data transformation that can be achieved by having one transformation language that can work across multiple formats. Our transformation solution not only works on XML and JSON, but also works with CSV, EDI and Plain-Old-Java-Objects. XQuery and JSONiq are both geared towards their respective formats. Regarding the powerfulness of the solution or its completeness we feel that we achieved a very sweet spot, if you feel differently we would love to hear what areas are we missing or what is it that we can improve.
========================================
Daniela Florescu <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=910384&authType=name&authToken=IP5T&trk=hp-feed-commenter-name>Dear Mulesoft, first of all, the XML community designed modules to import/export almost any kind of data formats existing on the planet, and those modules are standardized already among the (very many) XQuery implementations. So? CSV data ? Excel data ? JDBC interface ? No problem !! We can talk to ALL of them. So, no, XQuery and JSONiq are NOT designed for their respective formats ONLY.
As for the expressive power, the only think I can say is... wait and see. Your product is just born. We've seen 20 years of such semi-structured to semi-structured data queries, mappings, and transforms.....Just take a look at the standard XML Schemas: NIEM, HL7, XBRL, etc. With such real world complexity, your simple mapping scheme will hit the limits very, very quickly. And you'll need to extend it. And eventually you'll end up re-doiung the same work we did while designing XQuery.
And honestly @Mulesoft, I don't wish anybody, even my worst enemy, to redo the work that the XQuery WG and JSONiq did. This was NOT fun. That meant talking care of horrendous complexity (XML itself, XML Schema, divergences with JSON, etc). It took us 15 years to do that, and trust me, we were not particularly slow, or stupid. If you are smart, you should reuse that, and not waste your efforts and money to redo the same thing again. There is no fame or glory (nor money!!) in there, trust me.