[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 11:59:14 -0600
Going offlist to save some mush brained
mail and the embarassment of not knowing
what the heck this thread is about.
I think I agree, but I may be losing out
on interpreting the score card of who
wants what where. Brain fry perhaps
from writing an article about
applying ontology-beyond-search. It
was a hard paper and I probably screwed it up.
Oh well. Back to the doofusBranch for Len...
In some cases, one wants to define a
production (content model) that generates a
context for a value. In other cases, one wants to
define a rule that tests a value in a context.
The means for both have overlapping
powers to express this, but one
can be terser. That is, a
kolmogorov complexity test would suggest
the superiority of one of these means for
some output. In other cases, one and only
one of these means works.
I understand that there are things
which can't be checked from the
schema grammar (co-occurence) and
that is fine so far. It is a real
and immediate requirement to apply
languages such as Schematron in addition
to an XML Schema.
I can't understand if someone wants to:
1) Get rid of schema and use rules-based
languages in all cases or vice versa
2) Make sure that both rules and grammars
are expressible in schemas *ASAP* thus tossing
XML Schema back to committee for another year.
I guess I understand that one might want
to ensure 2) can be done at some future
point by some standard means such as what
Clark and the others are discussing. I
understand the need to do both. Given
a document en route among different owners
using different systems with different local
rules I understand the need to be able to
separate into different documents rules
that encode the production of contexts from
documents that check values in contexts.
So I think I understand what is lost if
only grammars are provided. But given
Schematron, that isn't the case. So where
is this thread headed?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h