Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?

[Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>]

> > If we know XML documents need to be graphs, why are we working as if they
> > are trees? Why do we have schema languages that enforce the treeness of the
> > syntax rather than provide the layer to free us from it?
>
> This is very interesting.  Most information models for XML texts
> are based on a tree or the hedge model.  The support for XML as
> a representation for general graphs just isn't "core".

I think this depends on what you mean by "core".

XSLT, RDF, XLink all introduce graphs to the XML model.  I would have
thought this is as core as you get.  This is not to mention all the
auxilliary specs that introduce graphs, including the recent darling RDDL.

> Certainly there are "layered" mechanisms for building graphs,
> SOAP uses one method, we have the HTML href mechanism, then
> we have xlink/xinclude/xpointer trio.  All of these are
> slightly different, no?  Is this what we want?

I don't follow the question.  Hopefully Rick does.

> By far the most interesting (and practical) thread in months,

Ha.  Rick must be dipping in Wulai again.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python