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

RE: semantics in schema (xsd)

• To: Irene Polikoff <Irene@t...>
• Subject: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• From: Pedro Salazar <pedro-b-salazar@p...>
• Date: 27 Feb 2004 17:07:45 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <002801c3fd52$2545e8b0$0201a8c0@IRENE>
• Organization: Portugal Telecom Inovação, S.A.
• References: <002801c3fd52$2545e8b0$0201a8c0@IRENE>

On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 16:52, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Some application domains care to make a difference between husbands and
> wifes, others do not - in these cases the use of a spouse is more
> appropriate. My point was that there are technical mechanisms in OWL
> that allow us to implement what Liam wanted to do, and what Pedro wanted
> to. How exactly, depends on the need of the application and I have no
> interest in arguing over it.

Ouch! I never imagined the growing threads over this topic issue.

Let me say now that the sample I used was just a simplified and dummy
sample of my real case, which has nothing about husband and wifes :-)

Now, the discussion has clarified me about the importance of the
definition schema, and believe me that I abandoned the theory of trying
to validate the most as possible with the schema rules. 

I agree that the schema should be simple, and the semantics validations
should be done post-schema validation. I mean, I'll try to use
schematron (for instance) to do the post semantics validations and keep
my schema definition stable and simple.  

Thanks,
Pedro Salazar
-- 
-PS

• References:
  • RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
    • From: "Irene Polikoff" <Irene@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Next by Date: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Previous by thread: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Next by thread: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread