• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: What is the name of a document's "type"?
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:13:52 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <000f01c1a81b$91ce3c00$78fe0250@pcukmka>

Michael Kay wrote:

> Since we're talking of native XML databases, in Tamino there is a relationship
> between the concepts of document type and schema, but it doesn't have to be
> one-to-one; a document type is whatever the user wants it to be, the only
> restriction being that each document has exactly one type.

Please forgive me if I am being obtuse, but the phrasing above seems to beg anew
the very question which I hope we might resolve in this thread. Are you saying
(as I hope) that each document instance committed to Tamino may have exactly one
type because of the inherent limit in this 'type' being a purely lexical
identifier (whether specifically the root element GI or not, and whether
lexically namespaced or not)? Or are you saying that this 'exactly one type' is
an artificial restriction imposed by Tamino on 'type' understood as 'class of
document', however that might be defined as anything more than signalled by a
simple lexical identifier?

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: What is the name of a document's "type"?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• References:
  • RE: What is the name of a document's "type"?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: What is the name of a document's "type"?
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: RE: What is the name of a document's "type"?
• Next by thread: RE: What is the name of a document's "type"?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread