[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
From: K.Kawaguchi <k-kawa@b...> >the sequence of "a c a b b b b" satisifies all of your rules, but is >invalid compared to your original grammar. Yes. That is my point (in answer to Len's question), * that grammars and path-based rule systems are not equally expressive; * that grammars and path-based rule systems are not a subset, either of the other; and * that the structures that grammars can handle which path-based rule systems cannot are less useful and of dubious merit (because there are structures present which are not labelled and therefore inaccessible to standard API-based systems that just use the infoset; to say these structures are significant puts us on the slippery slope to PSVI.) So I am not trying to say that Schematron is strictly more powerful than RELAX or TREX, because they can model different things. I am saying, however, that I think the structures that path-based rule systems can model are better than those that grammar-based-systems can model. I don't buy the ancestor-only rule for context-processing here: there is no reason why any arbtrary set of data should form a tree rather than a graph, and consequently there is no reason why some data or structure in one part of a document may not constrain the data in another part in some important way. >I still can't understand what you were tring to show by your example... The example was trying to show that it is very easy to infer by various heuristics simple rules to model a grammar (and to give simple natural language explainations). But that to model everything in any arbitrary grammar was either - impossible, because of unbounded repetitions of sequences that can occur in other parts of the grammar (I don't have proof this is so, but I cannot see otherwise how it could be done), or - nasty, because the resulting XPaths could have to trace through long strings simulating the paths possible in the FSM, or - not useful for the purposes of Schematron, because the natural language description is valued just as highly as the artificial language expression and long complex chains may be too difficult have nice descriptions. 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
|