Bug #600

eml-storedProcedure - problems & proposal

Added by David Blankman about 18 years ago. Updated almost 18 years ago.

eml - general bugs
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:


As I began documenting storedProcedure it seemed to me that it is not
appropriately modeled. In eml-view, there is "queryStatement" which allows the
user to provide the sql code necessary to produce the view that is being documented.

In storedProcedure, however, "parameter" replaces queryStatement. In order to
invoke a stored procedure, however, you need more than just the parameters. You
need the name of the storedProcedure or something equivalent to the
queryStatement found in eml-view. I would proposed a structure for
storedProcedure that resembles eml-view.

I am assuming that storedProcedure is meant to apply primarily to a DBMS. If so,
then the storedProcedure syntax and execution must be system specific. If the
intent is to describe the stored procedure, then that should be done in

eml-storedProcedureProposed.xsd (5.31 KB) eml-storedProcedureProposed.xsd David Blankman, 09/23/2002 12:10 PM
eml-storedProcedure.xsd (9.76 KB) eml-storedProcedure.xsd David Blankman, 09/23/2002 01:15 PM
ParameterType2.png (4.42 KB) ParameterType2.png David Blankman, 09/23/2002 04:44 PM


#1 Updated by David Blankman about 18 years ago

This is a proposed replacement for the storedProcedure schema.

#4 Updated by David Blankman about 18 years ago

Peter McCartney & I discussed the storedProcedure module. We both agreed that
the current structure is inadequate. The problems and proposed changes are
related to the structure of the parameter element.

We came up with three possible modifications. In each option the datatype field
is removed. (in order of complexity):

1. Remove datatype and substitute it with a field called domainDescription. The
content of this field would be a text description of the allowable values. This
is a human readable description with no pretense of machine processing. (my

2. Remove datatype and replace it with the attributeDomain complex type. This
allows for more structured description of the allowable values.

3. Remove datatype and replace it with a choice of options 1 and option2, that is,


I have attached a png file of what option 3 might look like.

#5 Updated by David Blankman almost 18 years ago

Changed parameter/datatype to parameter/domainDescription and added documentation.
The domainDescription still needs a good example in the documentation.

#6 Updated by David Blankman almost 18 years ago

I provided an example for domainDescription. The example isn't as good as I
would like, but should be sufficient for technical documentation (especially
since the user population is likely to be relatively small.

#7 Updated by Redmine Admin over 7 years ago

Original Bugzilla ID was 600

Also available in: Atom PDF