Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Stefan Haustein <email@example.com>
- To: "Fabio Arciniegas A." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:11:14 +0100
> During the writing of some C++ classes for the representation of data
> conforming with a particular schema I began to wonder about the
> "translation" of an arbitrary schema to domain specific objects
> (pretty much in the way exactml or some oracle products do nowadays
> with DTDs) and I started to wonder about the implications of
> derivation by restriction.
> What I'm looking for is whether the impedance of Der. by Rest. on OO
> apps/representations has been considered by anyone before...(not a
> basic description of how derivation works,Nikita.But thanks).
I think the main point here is that derivation in
object orientation means specialization. So if B is
a subclass of A, you can replace any occurence of A
by B. If you specialize B by restriction, that does
not hurt object orientation as long a any instance of
B is still a valid instance of A, too.
This principle would be violated if you "restrict" B
that a subelement required in A is not required in B.
In fact, that would not be a specialization or
restriction but a generalization. If I read the specs
right, you are not allowed to widen the [minOccurs...
maxOccurs] interval, so the problem you address seems
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to firstname.lastname@example.org the message
unsubscribe xml-dev (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.