xml-dev - Re: XSchema Question 2: Namespaces

[Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>]

David Megginson wrote:
> I don't know if this is -- strictly speaking -- true.  The WG may
> define a core schema language, but I would be surprised if it is the
> only one. 

Lisa Rein wrote:
> 
> I wasn't saying it had to be the only one, just that other ones would
> most likely be built up FROM that.  Am I wrong?  Correct me.

All XML documents represent trees. Some schema languages will work with
those trees (e.g. XSchema). Some XML documents ALSO represent tables (2D
structures). Those will require schema languages that look something like
relational database schema languages. Some XML documents represent
machine-processable "knowledge". Those will require schema languages
RDF-Schema.

Maybe the W3C could make such a flexible "schema container" that all of
these schema languages could be implemented in the container, but I think
that there comes a point when a container is SO flexible as to be useless.
Putting relational, knowledge-rep and tree verification information in one
schema strikes me as probably not useful, even if it turns out to be
possible. The important thing to note is that each type of schema will be
working on a different underlying data model -- all encoded in the same
XML document.

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Three things never anger: First, the one who runs your deck
The one who does the backup, and the one who signs your check 
http://www.geezjan.org/humor/computers/threes.html



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)