Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: ricko <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:57:45 +0800
From: "Eric van der Vlist" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Even if sometimes I'd wish they are only this, I think that it's quite
> limitative to restrict schemata (either syntaxic or semantic) to a set
> of constraints.
There are two effects: schemas viewed by their proximate effect of producing
some transformed data (which in turn conforms to some other meta-schema),
and schemas viewed by their ultimate effect of constraining the direct data.
In other words,
a schema language is expressed in terms of ultimate constraints
a schema implementation actually converts the schema into a
transformation functions which transforms the instance into some proximate
a schema assessor/valdator checks whether this transformation matches the
allowed proximate form
the report mechanism gives appropriate messages, in terms of the ultimate
So, to some extent, schemas as a "set of constraints" hides "schemas as
high-level transformation languages" and "schemas as high-level diagnostics
So how can we test schema implementation conformance? It seems to me that
we have to have provide a conformance-meta-schema for the proximate form.