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

Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Bill Lindsey <bill@b...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:09:48 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: B-Bop Associates, Inc.
• References: <3C599F10.4090204@b...> <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6362@HQ5> <200201312140.g0VLeuj19647@d...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1

(in response to my question):
>>   * Is the representational form
>>     property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent?

Joe English wrote:

> Maybe all three?  I don't think it's a single property
> though; there are an infinite number of types to which
> a particular XML document belongs, from the universal type
> "well-formed XML" down to the singleton set "this document".
> 


Sure. Or you could say the property has multiple values.
In some processing scenarios, it's useful to
to test a document against some form(s) I already
know something about, and get a boolean.

In other scenarios, it's more useful to get an answer to
to the question: "what is the name of the *principle*
representational form"?  Then, if I, the processor, possess
a model of forms that includes predicates such as
"is-a-restriction-of" or "is-arch-form-mappable-to"
other forms, then I can make an informed decision on
how I might process it.

I also asked:

>>   * Could this property be also be obtained for
>>     elements?

> Sure, why not?


Either you misunderstood my question, or you might
reconsider using "document type" to name this property.

 

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread