[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Schemata are not just constraints

• From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>
• To: allette <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:43:55 +0000

Nice to hear from you Rick. Glad to hear you are not "overdone" at present
(in Wulai). Some of us "hard-boiled" old eggs take longer to get up steam!

> Why should XML Schemas have
> key constraints and uniqueness, but not multiple inheritance?

With the relational database bias of RDF showing itself at W3C do you really
need to ask this question :-) Interestingly the abstract element concept
shows the influence of the UML modellers. It maps nicely to UML stereotypes,
but as this is a feature of UML that is little understood it will take a
while for people to wake up to what is happening here. (AFs for classes!)

>Until we have
> a broad range of different experimental and commercial languages for
> constraining certain things in relation to other things,  we cannot know
> what is powerful and convenient.

Agreed. The real problem is expressing constraints that apply across
classes, rather than inheritable property constraints. (If class X > 12 do
not require class Y, but do check that class Z is restricted to values A or
B.) This is one of the big "holes" in ebXML. We know its boundaries, but are
having difficulty filling it in.

Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Schemata are not just constraints
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Schemata are not just constraints
    • From: Danny Ayers <danny@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Schemata are not just constraints
    • From: allette <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML syntax for XPath?
• Next by Date: Re: DTDs vs Schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: Schemata are not just constraints
• Next by thread: RE: Schemata are not just constraints
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread