On 8/3/07 1:52 PM, "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And of
> course this approach is the same approach use by XML fans everywhere.
> Semantics remains implicit, and so you are free to interpret however
> you want.
Actually, there are a few of us (old school XML-heads) who prefer to write
XML Schemas based on a well designed data models and store the semantics
inside a metadata facility. (01)
http://www.gils.net/11179.html (02)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb-services.gov
%2Fbrandsaic92004.ppt&ei=-pyzRrHHBpLCgQOrjIXEBA&usg=AFQjCNGj5ZsCRj2LkL6Wm4JI
tpShGvKrGQ&sig2=gZADqw55rzFQsSJamyyWeg (03)
Don't think it will ever really catch on as the discipline involved is a lot
more overhead than just writing the XML. (04)
/d (05)
--
**********************************************************************
"Speaking only for myself"
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html
********************************************************************** (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|