Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Joe English wrote: > > Robert Worden wrote: > > > A suggestion: in parallel with anything else you do, re-express the Schema > > spec in a mathematical specification language such as VDM or Z. Publish a > > mathematically annotated version of the spec. > > Or, use techniques from denotational semantics > like Phil Wadler did for early drafts of XPath and > XSL [1,2]. If anyone cares to develop formal models of XML Schemas using algebraic notations that have good academic credibility, then I am sure the XML Schema WG will be very interested in them: for example, they could at least be linked to from the W3C XML Schema home page. The idea of formal models annotating the normative spec is very appealing: it sounds pretty workable since the normative status of each is kept clear. One step beyond that, may I make the offer that Academia Sinica will be happy to submit or co-submit these to W3C as Notes (acceptence by W3C is not guaranteed, they have to process them according to their own resources): the proviso would be that if you provide such a formal model you should also provide some peer review to attest to how well the model captures the XML Schema spec? Rick Jelliffe Academia Sinica Computing Centre Taipei, Taiwan
|
