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

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

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Ken North <ken_north@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:36:56 -0400

Ken North wrote:

> Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > In particular statement [3] which defines Schema Equality as
Instances(a)
> = Instances(b), that is two schemata are 'equal' if their instance sets
are
> equal.
> ... snip ...
>
> > I have not addressed the issue of how one might actually determine that
> two schemata are functionally equal, but this is the general direction.
>
> Hmmm... what about
>
> 1. types(a) = types(b)

this might work.

> 2. PSVI(a) = PSVI(b)
> 3. validation errors(a) = validation errors(b)

not sure what either of these mean. a and b are both schemata, right?

> 4. Reverse engineer a and b into a conceptual model:
> CM(a) = CM(b)
>

assuming CM captures every constraint in the schema. see 1.

-Jonathan

• Prev by Date: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Next by Date: RE: Web Services stuff - fyi
• Previous by thread: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Next by thread: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread