Are there any search tool / list of common concept/vocabulary from existing schema that can be used as reference when developing new ontology?
e.g. foaf http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
Currently I am developing new ontology, and wondering whether I need to create new concept or just use the existing one, such as abbreviation etc.
Related
Good Morning,
as from the title, i'd like to create a proprietary database to be integrate in a Typo3 website.
I'd like to receive some advise on which is the best solution:
- is it possible to create tables directly from Typo3?
- is it better creating a database, for example with MySQL and then integrate
it?
In the second case, how coud that be done?
are there other options?
I hope this is not an already answered topic, in case, please send me to it ( i could not find so much information.
Thanks in advance.
If I understand your question correctly, you want to add a custom Extension to TYPO3, containing custom tables. From a content side, this is perceived as a "database", right?
TYPO3 has a framework for that called Extbase. You can "kickstart" a TYPO3 extension with the "Extension Builder" https://typo3.org/extensions/repository/view/extension_builder by entering the "Model" (the data structure) via GUI and then you get all tables etc. automatically set up.
After that (aside from general TYPO3 knowledge), there is some coding involved. In theory, it's possible to make a "round trip" back to the extension builder from the code, but I've never done that.
You need to know / learn the specificities of extbase / php, which is is based on some "convention over configuration" rules and has some additional tweaks to plain PHP (functional comments). Here's a great resource: http://www.extbase-book.org/.
With that, you have great flexibility and powerful tooling to build almost anything inside TYPO3.
From a TYPO3 view it is best if you are able to hold your data in the TYPO3 database. You need to create an extension to handle your data. In TYPO3 an extension can define it's own tables and with updates of the extension updates in the datastructure are handled automatically.
Since version 8 there is a new layer (doctrine) and so it is possible to define further databases for individual tables. With some restrictions you are able to even use different database (-systems) for different tables.
Anyway you could program your own database interface to get and store your data independent from any TYPO3 restrictions, but then you need to handle everything on your own.
Using the TYPO3 core API will help you in multiple ways to handle your data without programming everything anew.
Especially if you use extbase (and the EXT:extensionbuilder) you will get a complete BE data handling, FE-Plugins with Fluid templates to present your data, even data management from the FE could be generated for you just by defining the datastructure. Of course versioning, workspace and timed visibility support are also available if you use TYPO3 structures which includes some (mostly invisible) fields aside from uid, hidden, deleted.
With the new version of VS 2013 RTM and asp.net mvc 5.0, I’ve decided to try out a few things...
Needless to say, a lot has changed. For example, the new ASP.NET Identity is a replacement of the old Membership and (less old) SimpleMembership APIs.
In all previous applications I’ve built, I never had the chance to work with Membership or with SimpleMembership. I’ve always ended up creating my own Login() method which would convert a submitted ViewModel to a POCO (using automapper) which in turn, would use some sort of repository to lookup the user and password.
In return, I would obtain a User POCO that would later be converted (using automapper) to a smaller UserSession POCO. The smaller UserSession would be place in Session.
Of course, I would still use FormsAuthentication to create an Encrypted Ticket and use FormsAuthentication.SignOut() when the user wanted to logoff.
But I never fully took advantage of what Membership (or SimpleMembership) had to offer.
I never had my POCOs implement some sort of Interface nor did I have to add a reference to the Microsoft’s libraries inside my POCO class library. In other words, I never had a strong dependency on anything.
My question is the following:
With the examples I see, I keep seeing that the new ASP.NET Identity creates (via code first) some tables and fields. For example, the AspNetUsers table holds an Id field as a string. Of course, I’m sure there is a way to overcome this and will eventually see examples, but why would anyone NOT want to build pure POCO classes and have total control of what and how things are created?
Unless I’m confused (which has a high probability) can anyone explain why I would want to use the new ASP.NET Identity API (or more importantly, use the new Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework) to create my tables?
What are the Pros and Cons in wanting to use this as opposed to the POCO style of things?
Perhaps I should be asking this in a different question, but I’m also trying to understand how can I benefit the new claims-based Identity while using POCOs instead of Entities generated with ASP.NET Identity.
Feel free to point me in the right direction for clarifications.
you can create your own UserManager completely,wich i don't recommand unless you have a strong knowledge about how it works.you can wrap the existing UserManager and make you application rely on an interface or just use it directely and benefit from what microsoft has put in it.if you don't like EF you can create your own Store to use another Database. the new ASP.NET Identity is extensible enough,i agree that is kinda Hard if you want to take full controle and customize everything,but i recommand taking time to understand the most of it so you can choose when to use or not.most of time it's enough to use the existing UserManager.
You want the UserManager from Microsoft.AspNet.Identity to do your security part such your users do not have to trust that you can handle your security information correctly.
Identity.Framework is just a datastore for the Identity stuff, you could create your own store instead if you dont want EF. I have created one that just stores information directly in a xml file. But I always come back to using Identity because I dont want to deal with encrypting and making sure I am up to date with stuff in the security department.
I have a webapp which I am planning on converting into a REST api and have decided to use CakePHP for this - the current form is written in ColdFusion.
The database is a couple million records in size with 20 tables or so and a few associative tables that handle the many-to-many situations.
I'm looking for the best method to start the CakePHP solution mainly in regards to the database. Should I import my existing db and just use cake to access its current form? Should I bake a fresh database structure (in order to stay within the cake standards) then figure out how to get my data into the new db, and maintain relationships etc (how?)?
Edit:
There are many users on the existing app, but when the new CakePHP api is setup and ready to go, the old service will be closed to use the new one.
The current app is not designed in an MVC way, are you referring to Models as being synonymous with Tables? There are many existing tables with foreign key relationships but they are not named using the CakePHP standards - so not sure if this will break CakePHP or make its features not as usable.
Time is an issue, but I'd rather take the time now and get it done the correct way, instead of having to re-visit shortly.
I largely depends on your situation:
Are there people using the old application? - This will mean you
can't really create another database for your new app if you want to
access new information.
Is there really a need to change the relationships of models? - I don't think you should change unless you
really need to.
Cost - How much time are you willing to spend on the migration?
Note:
You can modify almost everything on your model to cope up with the previous database/table structure.
So I have this fileMakerPro7 database. As my senior project, I supposed to migrate the database to a MySQL database and than give it a PHP Based interface in 3N form...
Company allow us $200 tops to spend on the project, but if I pay for something, it has to work. However, I am having trouble finding a way of migrating the database. Any suggestions?
I have found "file maker pro migrator" (http://www.fmpromigrator.com), would the trial version be enough for us? In worst case, we will start from the beginning with throwing away the whole database that company has.
I can also download fileMakerPro12 and use it for a month with trial version for free. Would I be able to convert the db by using FMP12?
I am totally lost...open to any free suggestions...
+this is a non-profit-making company I'm doing the project for
If I had to do it, I'd look at the design of the FileMaker db and create something similar in mysql. Then I would export the Filemaker data to text and import it somehow. The details depend on foreign key values and such.
The PHP interface would be done separately.
MySQL Data Conversion:
Yes, if your database is small enough, the demo version of FmPro Migrator will convert the database and also build you a PHP web application - at no cost.
Here are the limitations of the demo version:
5 fields
5 scripts
5 layouts
PHP Web Application:
Most people don't realize it, but there is a wealth of FileMaker metadata available in XML format for performing these types of conversions. This XML info is available either thru copying the layout via the clipboard or reading it from the Database Design Report XML file. I have found the clipboard data to be the most reliable source of this info.
FmPro Migrator is able to parse in the XML and convert it into the PHP web application.
Each object on a layout is represented in XML, along with style and position info. This info can be used to create form files representing the same look as the original layout. In fact, it can be difficult to see the difference between the web application and the original database if you get all of the object properties implemented. This can be helpful for situations in which companies don't want to have to retrain their employees. They want the web application to look and work the same as the original desktop application.
I have done a few of these conversions recently into the CakePHP framework. Here a few techniques I used:
Auto-Enter Calculation Fields - Stored calculation fields are calculated and stored within the model saves a record to the database.
Unstored Calculation Fields - Unstored Calculation fields are calculated in real-time within the form controller - but only for fields actually displayed on the form. This prevents unnecessarily calculating these values if they aren't being used on a form, improving performance.
Global Fields - A Global field in FileMaker is used like a global variable in programming languages. It is important to know that each FileMaker user gets there own private copy of global field data. There is no equivalent feature MySQL or other SQL database servers, but this functionality can easily be simulated using SESSION variables. Therefore each web user will still get their own private SESSION data, simulating the same functionality originally present in the FileMaker database. I structure these globals in the model data array as if they were retrieved from the model, meaning that converted scripts and fields on forms can reference them easily. Just before the record gets written into the database, the results are saved into SESSION variables for persistence.
Global Variables in Scripts - Global variables within FileMaker scripts match up very well with the use of PHP SESSION variables, if you want to implement the same functionality.
Vector Graphic Objects - FileMaker layouts frequently include rectangles, ovals and line objects. These objects can be replaced with the RafaelJS library, providing high quality resolution independent graphics.
Value Lists - Custom and Field based value lists are implemented in a centralized location within the AppController.php file. Therefore making a change to the definition of the value list within the AppController, succeeds in changing the menu automatically throughout the whole application.
First a bit about the environment:
We use a program called Clearview to manage service relationships with our customers, including call center and field service work. In order to better support clients and our field technicians we also developed a web site to provide access to the service records in Clearview and reporting. Over time our need to customize the behavior and add new features led to more and more things being tied to this website and it's database.
At this point we're dealing with things like a Company being defined partly in the Clearview database and partly in the website database. For good measure we're also starting to tie the scripting for our phone system into the same website, which will require talking to the phone system's own database as well.
All of this is set up and working... BUT we don't have a good data layer to work with it all. We moved to Linq to SQL and now have two DBMLs that we can use, along with some custom classes I wrote before I'd ever heard of Linq, along with some of the old style ADO datasets. So yeah, basically things are a mess.
What I want is a data layer that provides a single front end for our applications, and on the back end manages everything into the correct database.
I had heard something about Entity Framework allowing classes to be built from multiple sources, but it turns out there can only be one database. So the question is, how could I proceed with this?
I'm currently thinking of getting the Linq To SQL classes all set for each database, then manually writing Linq compatible front ends that tie those together. Seems like a lot of work, and given Linq's limitations (such as not being able to refresh) I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Could I do something with Entity Framework that would turn out better? Should I look into another tool? Am I crazy?
The Entity Framework does give a certain measure of database independence, insofar as you can build an entity model from one database, and then connect it to a different database by using a different entity connect string. However, as you say, it's still just one database, and, moreover, it's limited to databases which support the Entity Framework. Many do, but not all of them. You could use multiple entity models within a single application in order to combine multiple databases using the Entity Framework. There is some information on this on the ADO.NET team blog. However, the Entity Framework support for doing this is, at best, in an early stage.
My approach to this problem is to abstract my use of the Entity Framework behind the Repository pattern. The most immediate benefit of this, for me, is to make unit testing very simple; instead of trying to mock my Entity model, I simply substitute a mock repository which returns IQueryables. But the same pattern is also really good for combining multiple data sources, or data sources for which there is no Entity Framework provider, such as a non-data-services-aware Web service.
So I'm not going to say, "Don't use the Entity Framework." I like it, and use it, myself. In view of recent news from Microsoft, I believe it is a better choice than LINQ to SQL. But it will not, by itself, solve the problem you describe. Use the Repository pattern.
if you want to use tools like Linq2SQl or EF and don't want to have to manage multiple DBMLS (or whaetever its called in EF or other tools), you could create views in your website database, that reference back to the ClearView or Phone system's DB.
This allows you to decouple your web site from their database structure. I believe Linq2Sql and EF can use a view as the source for an Entity. If they can't look at nHibernate.
This will also let you have composite entities that are pulled from the various data sources. There are some limitations updating views in SQL Server; however, you can define your own Instead of trigger(s) on the view which can then do the actual insert update delete statements.
L2S works with views, perfectly, in my project. You only need to make a small trick:
1. Add a secondary DB table to the current DB as a view.
2. In Designer, add a primary key attribute to a id field on the view.
3. Only now, add an association to whatever other table you want in the original DB.
Now, you might see the view available for the navigation.