Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to
 On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:19:40 -0500, John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote: > Peter Hunsberger scripsit: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:41:29 +0100, J.Pietschmann <j3322ptm@y...> wrote: > > > Peter Hunsberger wrote: > > > > I need to make this a little clearer: syntax doesn't matter __if > > > > you're careful__. > > > > > > Perhaps in other words: Syntax doesn't matter unless you try > > > to express semantics by a certain syntax (i.e. syntax implies > > > semantics). Most of the EDI-formats I've seen attempt the latter. > > > > Certainly that's part of the issue: if you commit to a Schema up front > > then syntax matters since you've started to describe the semantics for > > a given syntax (element). > > Every syntax implies some semantics, or there would be no point in having > syntax: we could just concatenate the content-bits in alphabetical order > and try to guess what it was all about: "alice, bob, charlie, hates, > loves, peggy". Sorry if I didn't give enough detail for you to see where I was going with this (it's a little hectic around here). Perhaps I should have saidn "then the syntax matters more", and gone into more detail? The issue is: certain syntaxes carry with them more semantics than others; if you're modeling you want to make sure the semantics are correct before you commit to them.... > > > The other thing to figure out is how to do generic processing on > > everything. For example in an XSLT you don't look for element names, > > you look for other distinguishing attributes (type or such). > > All that means is that you are generic about element names but specific > about types. Now types are either specified by name (xsi:type), or are > determined by examining the child elements and attribute values in ways > that involve names. There's no such thing as generic-processing-all-the-way-down, > any more than the world can really be held up by turtles all the way down. Would you argue that RDF can'd be used to describe RDF? Again, perhaps I should have been clearer: given that many of these patterns are recursive they more-or-less can be "generic all the way down" (I don't believe your analogy has any relevance). For parts of this you don't really need to assume any type up front. -- Peter Hunsberger 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
