[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- To: "'Matthew Fuchs'" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:11:36 -0800
In addition, I would like to point out that in Object Data Models (including
the later releases of ODMG), there is a difference between structural type
lattices (classes in C++, aka type inheritance) and semantical collection
hierarchies (collection of objects that satisfy certain conditions that are
either necessary and sufficient or necessary, aka as class subsumption). A
common condition on such a semantical collection is, that all members are of
the same base type (the so called member type). This is exactly how you can
interpret the distinction between type (structural description) and element
(semantical role).
Best regards
Michael
--
Michael Rys
Microsoft XML Repository -- We store the Web and more
mrys@microsoft.com, rys@acm.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 5:30 AM
> To: XML-Dev Mailing list
> Subject: Schema concepts (was Re: W3C public lists (was Re:
> The Power of
> Groves))
>
>
> Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
>
> > If that holds not only for Simon, I would like to ask why XML schema
> > needs both <element> and <type>. It looks like they both correspond
> > to the class concept in OOP. See
>
> Because several elements may share a type: this is illustrated in the
> lengthy example in chapter 2 in the current PWD [1]. If having looked
> at that you still don't understand, please come back with a question
> based on that example if possible.
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-types
|
