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

Keys versus links (was Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, s

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Keys versus links (was Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box)
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:43:38 +1000
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E0696F47C@r...> <3D056814.354C1E4F@a...>

 From: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@a...>
 
> > A.) I wouldn't call ID and IDREF co-occurrence constraints but instead
> > identity constraints of which W3C XML Schema has xs:key, xs:keyref and
> > xs:unique
> 
> Well, I guess that depends on the definition of co-occurence constraints.
> To me a co-occurence constraint is a constraint that is applied between
> different components of an XML document. With this definition identity
> constraints would be a subset of co-occurence constraints.

Another quite interesting aspect:  should schemas for XML be couched in 
terms of keys (database terms) or in terms of links (hypertext terms)?

To put it another way, should we be defining endpoints or the links themselves
in a schema language for XML?     

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Borrowed email address for virus
• Next by Date: How to change structure for XML file?
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread