[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Processing 'my' XML (was Re: Why Model Concepts?)
From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> >>to be able to build structural dependencies into schemas so that users can >>take document types for granted (and not need know why a stuctural >>constraint is--unless they want to) > >I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this - could you explain this in >more depth? Sorry, that was bad even for me. XLink is an example of what I mean. By using the XLink architecture, there will be less need for agreement between humans (or computers) on the meaning of the specific labels, because they already know about the architectural label. So the difficult task that Len talks about of human agreement reduces to apply only to those people who need to know the specifics: in many cases this may be no-one. Of course, this is just shaving away at this hard problem, but it can be big progress nonetheless. On a side issue, it seems to me that conceptual modeling (taking that to mean the use of modeling systems natural to the problem domain) is one reason why implementation languages (e.g. schema languages) need extensibility and access to low-level, impure features. Parameter entities may be ratty, but they are glue that conventions can use for higher-level modeling; look at how even XML Schemas needed redefine for XHTML m12n--we will die without a little sugar. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
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
|