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

Re: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schemaambiguitydetectio

• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:20:48 +0700

Joe English said pretty much everything I wanted to say.  Just one
additional comment.

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> doesn't the presence of these tricky ambiguity issues
> mean that to actually understand RELAX (and presumably certain other schema
> languages)  requires a computer scientist not a data modeler?

If you're using RELAX for validation, it doesn't have any ambiguity
issues.  In this regard it is the same as TREX.  The ambiguity issues
only arise if you try to use it to "interpret" the document (that is
augment the information in the document by assigning each element or
attribute a label corresponding to some rule in the schema).  If you
just stick to validation, there's no issue.

I would agree with the sentiment that it's bad to inflict tricky
ambiguity issues on data modelers. Fortunately this is not inherent in
using grammars for validation.


James

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: "K.Kawaguchi" <k-kawa@b...>

• References:
  • Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: [RDDL] Java Object Model
• Next by Date: RE: Dereferencing Namespace URIs considered harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread