[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Names and schemas
Robin Cover wrote: > > I'm made to feel more in doubt than ever about the level of abstraction > that's envisioned for "schema" (and XSchema) in this discussion. It's > not clear to me that the principal goal of a new schema language would > be to define classes of markup, with (syntactic?) constraints, though > certainly that could be one role. I don't think that the role of schemas would be merely to define syntactic constraints. Usually you would use a grammar or regular expression to do that. My definition of schema is: "A document that defines a class of data objects in some data model." So a "database schema" defines a class of "databases", usually in the "relational" data model. XSchema should define a class of "elements" (and "documents") in the (still implicit) "XML data model." Angle brackets are not part of the (implicit) XML data model -- they are part of its syntax. So a schema language would not override or change those characters. The characters between tags (content) are part of the data model. It might make sense for a schema language to express contraints on those characters. > From what realm(s) of discourse are these definitions being drawn? I don't know where that definition comes from. It is my application of the intuitive notion of a schema and my experience (but not expertise) with database systems. > That said (and perhaps too much), I welcome clarifications from > Paul and others on what is meant by "schema" and what authorities > (domains) are being used for the definition. and (especially) > the extent to which it's agreed that a schema should (not) be > constrained by the notions of particular markup models. I'm not sure what *exactly* you mean by markup models. The schema works on a data model. If you can translate some random document conforming to a random markup language into something that fits that model, then the schema applies. Otherwise it does not. Simple "low-level" schemas will usually express bias towards one markup language or the other. One could imagine a markup language with no concept of attribute, or with one that could have deep structures. XSchema would probably not apply to the latter, and might not work "as well" with the former. On the other hand, a higher-level schema might not care about concepts like elements and attributes at all. For instance RDF's data model is radically different from XML's (and thus XSchemas). Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco Three things never anger: First, the one who runs your deck The one who does the backup, and the one who signs your check http://www.geezjan.org/humor/computers/threes.html xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|