RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
Right. Which is why there are include and redefine statements in XML schemas, yes? Components of schemas instead of monoliths. Decentralized systems typically are more robust than centralized systems. The success of HTML was not in its design but in its effect; it opened access to the discourse. After that, it became a bottleneck to development. No size fits all purposes. The issues are negotiation and interpretation. Lots of levels here for theorists and practicioners alike. As to having one schema language be better than lots: it is practical to have one language to create languages, it is not practical technically or politically to have one language. Again, one system means no ambiguity, but ambiguity is real, the system is not. Something fun to do: compare Lenat's and Brooks' approaches to AI. Which one do you think is more robust given a position on bottom-up vs top-down? If you really want to use XML for conceptual modeling, this is a dilemma. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean@d...] Single models (monolithic) fail in the real world not in the theoretical world. In theory, people in a smoke filled room can agree a top-down model of data interchange. In practice, the cannot. In theory, developers can manage the state-space explosion inherent in processing monolithic content models but in practice they cannot.
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