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

Re: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schemaambiguitydetectio

• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:38:57 -0500

Len Bullard wrote -


> Precisely.   What that says to me is that
> we have to know the bounds of the system
> to determine the requirements for the
> means of valdiation, which is why I suggest a
> broadcast model at the high end.
>

This thought experiment might highlight what's needed in these cases Len keeps
talking about.  Imagine that there is a Linda-like system, and its tuple space
is relatively public, or at least shared by Len's agencies.  One agency puts
out a tuple with slots that are query templates asking to be filled.

Later, the agency retrieves the tuple and pulls out the field values.  How can
it have some confidence that those field values are what it asked for?  Or, to
bring the question closer to this thread, what has to be included with the
query so that another system can undertand what is being asked for and
evaluate whether it should respond?

Remember, in this Linda-like system, a responding agency only knows the
contents of the field in the tuple.  Nothing more, unless the whole system is
set up with some ground rules.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: MSXML Parser version/mode installed -- Follow up.
• Next by Date: The Division of Schema - A Practical Perspective (Re: Are we losingout because of grammars?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
• Next by thread: RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread