Joe, Why do feel that the structure of the object is lost? I use schema's all the time, and I have not had this experience. We perform direct serialization of Java objects to XML (and back again), and the resulting XML is validated against schema in our XML database. The structure of these objects is retained perfectly, and mimicked perfectly by the schema. Though it can be difficult to read, it is just like any other language. With time, it becomes intuitive. For XML serializating of Java objects, check out EXML at The Mind Electric. They specialize in web services, and use their EXML package to directly map Java objects to XML so that your web service can focus on implementation (instead of parsing). Also, they automatically generate type definitions in WSDL files, which is quite similar to schema. As to DTD's, they are not typed, whereas schemas typically include type information. I do not know if one is more readable than the other. I think they are equally obsfucated. -Patrick Duke Bioinformatics Shared Resource mccon012 at mc.duke.edu Joe Landman <landman at scientificappliance.com>@bioinformatics.org on 06/18/2002 06:38:16 PM Please respond to biodevelopers at bioinformatics.org Sent by: biodevelopers-admin at bioinformatics.org To: biodevelopers <biodevelopers at bioinformatics.org> cc: Subject: [Biodevelopers] XML Schema Hi folks: Anyone using XML Schema? It is not a "standard" but a "recommendation". Just curious. Reading over the documentation and the examples, it seems to lose the structure of the object it is supposed to represent. It looks ok for parsers, but somewhat annoying for humans. It may be overkill for what I want anyway. I was just looking at it to try to understand its utility. Thanks. Joe -- Joe Landman, email: landman at scientificappliance.com web : http://scientificappliance.com _______________________________________________ Biodevelopers mailing list Biodevelopers at bioinformatics.org http://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/biodevelopers