[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:59:11 -0700 (MST)
> > 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
firstname.lastname@example.org +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