Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
"Michael W. Ripley" wrote: > > IMHO, application specific semantics > are what keep getting us in trouble with regards to data > interoperability. Hence the drive for ontologies, common data > environments, standardized database schemas, common data models, etc. > > What should be a Best Practice? I'm in strong favor of universal > semantics. It's very difficult to implement, but it's what we should > try to do. Mike presents a strong argument in favor of creating elements with the same semantics, regardless of the application that uses them (he calls this "universal semantics"). He argues, for example, that if I create an element <car> then it should have the same semantics in all applications. Other people, on the other hand, have argued that an element declaration merely is a syntactic representation and each application should be able to apply application-specific semantics. This ability for an element to change semantics with each application that uses it is one of the advantages that we have listed for Chameleon components. What do you think? When you create a schema component should that component be expected to have the same semantics regardless of the application that uses it, i.e., universal semantics? Or, should the component be able to "semantic-morph" to each application, i.e., localized semantics? /Roger
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format