On Friday 03 August 2007 14:27, Duane Nickull wrote:
> 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)
In a world that seems to be filled with scruffies as far as the eye can
see, I, too, appreciate a more disciplined approach. Though as I'm fond
of saying, structure, procedure and formalism in proportion to the
magnitude of the problem you're solving. Judging from the scale of the
problems you refer to in those slides, a great deal of rigor is
justified. (02)
I wonder if you think of schema notations other than W3C Schema are
acceptable in this context? Say, RELAX-NG? (03)
Randall Schulz (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|