[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
See http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200003/msg00156.html for one clue from Eliot Kimber. Note: "1. Provide a syntax for binding types in one schema to types in another schema to define "is-a" relationships." "3. Provide a way to formally declare that one document/schema is derived from an architecture (remembering that the architecture is more than just a schema declaration, it is also the supporting documentation that describes the semantics of the types defined by the architecture)." I don't know if that is the extent of it. Is documentation of semantics enough? Note that SGML Notations could point to the actual processor (eg, a dll) and pass that to the system. I am curious: how direct and at what level of granularity should XML instances and elements indicate "semantics"? What are the allowable or preferred expressions of the semantic? It seems that every proposal so far is just another means of indirection varying mainly in the syntax or the level of binding (to a document, to an element in a document, to a type in a document) that relates the containing object to a "semantic". len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] I can see that at some higher level they could be used as different ways to assign semantics to syntax, but that seems like an application of NS or AF, not inherent to either.
|
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
|