[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: 17 Feb 2000 08:52:12 +0000
Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au> writes:
> Hi,
> Thanks for all the replies to my previous questions on equivClass. I
> now have a new problem based on my new understanding. At the moment
> there exists equivClass and derived type, but I do not see why both are
> necessary as derived type could do the same job.
> [examples elided]
> By separating equivalence from inheritance, are we saying that even
> elements of the same type or subtypes of the same type are not
> necessarily substitutable by one another in every context. For
> instance, even if elements "name" and "account number" are both of type
> string, they could not be used in place of one another in most context.
> Is this the main reason behind the separation of inheritance and
> equivalence?
Precisely.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
