[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
Bill Lindsey wrote: > > Seems to me that semantics are most naturally > related to types. ... But we're not allowed to > use that word here, huh? > [...] > What do we call the set of instances that can be > mapped to a specific base architecture through a > single architectural form? What do we call the > set of all instances amenable to processing by a > single DSDL? If we had names for these things, we > might find we had a nice hook to which processors > could attach semantics. I like your term "representational form", but then again I don't have a problem with the "document type" either so I'll continue to use that :-) > I'm becoming convinced that all XML documents have > an important property and that we don't have a > good name for that property. Common Lisp has a notion that seems applicable to XML. In Lisp, a type is just a predicate; a value belongs to the type if the predicate returns non-NIL when applied to the value. > [ ... cogent analysis snipped ... ] > What I don't know: > * Is the representational form > property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent? Maybe all three? I don't think it's a single property though; there are an infinite number of types to which a particular XML document belongs, from the universal type "well-formed XML" down to the singleton set "this document". Some may be intrinsic by virtue of a declaration (<!DOCTYPE ...>, xsi:schemaLocation, <?IS10744:arch ...?>, etc). > * Is this property fixed for the life of the > document, or does it change over time? > > * Could this property be also be obtained for > elements? Sure, why not? --Joe English jenglish@f...
|
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
|