Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

"K.Kawaguchi" wrote:
> 
> Probably I have to explain what I meant by saying "assistance of the
> interpretation".
> In your example, you used schema to establish "equivalencies between
> vocabularies", but it's not what I intended at all.
> 
> Yes, one can abuse schema as you described, but you can't conclude that
> "AoI" is useless or danger simply because it can be abused.

I don't think that it's useless, and I can see many useful usages of
schemas including for modeling purposes.

My point was rather to warn against the danger of a transfer of
"semantic" (or "meaning") between instance documents and schemas.

IMHO, we should keep as much semantic as possible in the instance
documents ;) ...

Otherwise, my library could become:

<a001 xmlns="http://example.org/ns/books">
  <a002>....</a002>
  <a003>
   <a004>
     <a005>...</a005>
     ...
   </a004>
  </a003>
</a001>

plus a schema that explains what the elements are meaning...

> For example, we have a tool "relaxer", which automatically generates
> an object model from RELAX grammar. This can't be done if you abandon
> "AoI" in schema (or in other words, if you reject the concept of
> "type-assignment").

Yes, these features are opening a wide scope of applications. 

That doesn't mean a single tool and language should try to cover all the
scope though and I think extension frameworks (such as SAF) have also a
role to play.

Thanks

Eric

> regards,
> ----------------------
> K.Kawaguchi
> E-Mail: k-kawa@bigfoot.com

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------