Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: K.Kawaguchi <k-kawa@bigfoot.com>


> 
> > is a good layer to build upon. I'm not saying that XSD or TREX
> > is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for 
> > the logical layering ( when trying to express the  rules in 
> 
> Would you elaborate it a little more, please? (And also, how about RELAX?)

I'd prefer it another way.

1. Let's assume that I have some schema, expressed in terms of RELAX.
( SQL 'core' == simple CREATE TABLE )

2. Now I want to write some 'more complex' rules / constraints a-la Schematron
( SQL 'layer 2' == constraints and / or  triggers ).

3. I want to write 2 sometimes using the entities which I've defined at the step 1.

How can I do that ?

Rgds.Paul.