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

meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:10:03 +0000

On 30 May 2001 10:55:34 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I have before.  We are staring into UML, RDF, Topic Maps, 
> XML Schemas, now add RDDL, TREX, RELAX, etc.   It isn't that any tool 
> or method alone is hard to grasp, it is the relationships 
> among them and how to choose when one is best.  In other 
> words, if we dare to do less, we should use less maybe. 
> 
> But put it altogether and I think interoperability becomes 
> a statistical guess.  Too many casually aligned parts.

RDDL does at least provide an opportunity to gather the rest of the
parts and make their alignment explicit.

For a nice example, see the RDDL spec itself:
http://rddl.org

How well the rest of the parts are actually aligned is up to their
creators, of course.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: meta-specs
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>

• References:
  • RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
• Next by Date: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Previous by thread: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Next by thread: Re: meta-specs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread