[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists (was Re: The Power of Gro
In addition, I would like to point out that in Object Data Models (including the later releases of ODMG), there is a difference between structural type lattices (classes in C++, aka type inheritance) and semantical collection hierarchies (collection of objects that satisfy certain conditions that are either necessary and sufficient or necessary, aka as class subsumption). A common condition on such a semantical collection is, that all members are of the same base type (the so called member type). This is exactly how you can interpret the distinction between type (structural description) and element (semantical role). Best regards Michael -- Michael Rys Microsoft XML Repository -- We store the Web and more mrys@m..., rys@a... > -----Original Message----- > From: ht@c... [mailto:ht@c...] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 5:30 AM > To: XML-Dev Mailing list > Subject: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists (was Re: > The Power of > Groves)) > > > Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...> writes: > > > If that holds not only for Simon, I would like to ask why XML schema > > needs both <element> and <type>. It looks like they both correspond > > to the class concept in OOP. See > > Because several elements may share a type: this is illustrated in the > lengthy example in chapter 2 in the current PWD [1]. If having looked > at that you still don't understand, please come back with a question > based on that example if possible. > > ht > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-types
|
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
|