• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Steve Tinney <stinney@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:55:34 -0500

I have before.  We are staring into UML, RDF, Topic Maps, 
XML Schemas, now add RDDL, TREX, RELAX, etc.   It isn't that any tool 
or method alone is hard to grasp, it is the relationships 
among them and how to choose when one is best.  In other 
words, if we dare to do less, we should use less maybe. 

But put it altogether and I think interoperability becomes 
a statistical guess.  Too many casually aligned parts.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Tinney [mailto:stinney@s...]

On Wednesday 30 May 2001 11:15 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> meta-specs

Could you elaborate?

• Follow-Ups:
  • meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
• Previous by thread: Re: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Next by thread: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread