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

RE: Subtyping in XML

• To: "'ht@c...'" <ht@c...>
• Subject: RE: Subtyping in XML
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:18:57 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Thanks Henry.  That points in the direction I 
suspected it did.  In a sense, as the RDF folks 
pointed out to us, a weak ontology.  That is 
not a criticism.  Weak ontologies are a fact 
of life.   Living and or any adaptive systems 
have a way of overcoming constraints, so at 
the top levels, hard constraints are *typically* 
artificial or viewpoint-oriented.  Depending 
on the object of the model, a weak ontology 
may be quite precise (or as precise as is 
useful).

len

From: ht@c... [mailto:ht@c...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> writes:

> How does one make an abstract type "generous"?

Judicious use of wildcards and/or elements with ur-type so they can be 
substituion group heads w/o much constraint.

> Serious question because of one design I've 
> worked on that insists on a primary schema 
> with derived secondary schemas.  To me the 
> term "generous" resonates with what is to 
> be achieved in that design, so I would like 
> to understand you more formally.

Understood -- I wish I could say something more formally.

• Prev by Date: Re: Subtyping in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Why is there no schema for RSS?
• Previous by thread: Re: Subtyping in XML
• Next by thread: RE: Subtyping in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread