[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:33:08 -0500
> > Right, but if you view attributes at "attributes of a type", and
> > content as "attributes of a type" (syntactic sugar), we get into
> > a funky world where one asks why you can't specify the ordering
> > of attributes as you can content. This is kind of where the
> > SML folk were coming from.
> The question of "order" is separate from that of a "type". In relational
> databases, each returned row can be seen as an instance of a type (a la C.
> J. Date), but the components of that type form a set, not a list.
I think ordering is just one more type constraint. I'm using
a non-standard definition of "type" though... where type is proven
by a set of assertions... kind of like
Is it red? Yes.
Does it have seeds? Yes.
Is it sweet? Yes.
Is it crispy when bitten into? Yes.
... I declare this to be an apple!