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

RE: more grist

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, xml-dev@l...,Ben Trafford <ben@l...>, Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
• Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:57:31 -0600

That makes sense.  Well-formedness per XML 1.0 
essentially says "instance before schema".  That 
means there is an infoSet/data model that ANY XML application 
language supports.  XML Schema post instance can 
add application information items.   So can any 
application processor per the plan for its language. 
SGML did not face this problem because the rule 
was reversed:  Schema before instance and in no 
case could the schema be an instance of the language.  
This was enforced for all conformant processors and thus, 
the addition of information worked *logically*.  

An XML Schema is an instance of the language, not a 
transform.  It can be viewed as needing a transform on the 
XML InfoSet.  That transform result is not The 
XML InfoSet, but other application languages may 
require that transform to provide their input. 
So Henry's pipeline analogy works.  This should 
not be confusing in that analogy in that one 
is not required to use that language or receive 
as input the results of that transform.  

So far so good.  It becomes a matter of only 
having to understand the languages one needs, 
their infoSets (grove plans of original XML) 
and having a conformant processor for that plan. 
System is built on system and that is how XML 
is supposed to work as far as I can tell.   

This shouldn't be controversial or more abstract 
if the definitions don't require a loopback to 
modify the original XML data model.  My problem 
would be if Cowan had to rewrite XML InfoSet to 
take care of privileged XML vocabularies.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

Simply consider this DLG as a grove or infoset, and see that transforms on
this graph are transforms on the Infoset. XML Schema's typing function
becomes alot less ominous when viewed in this fashion (and notice that RDF
already defines this function!!!)

• Prev by Date: Re: PSVI
• Next by Date: Re: more grist
• Previous by thread: Re: more grist
• Next by thread: RE: more grist
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread