[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a or b or both - mystery..
- From: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
- To: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
I read Joe English's mail also.
Let me ask you -- is there a definition of union of XML Schemas. I want to
take union of 2 XML schemas, show me a way of doing it.
For every operation, we should define how we can obtain the output type --
this is not needed unless your processing uses Schema.
I am slightly sceptical that we will be able to define any meaningful
union or other operations for XML Schemas.
<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>
cheers - murali.
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Marcus Carr wrote:
> Murali Mani wrote:
> > I have asked professors and others -- everyone I have asked believes
> > things just will not work without closure - you will get unexpected
> > things.
> What things will not work and what unexpected things might you get?
> > I think if you use XML only for data exchange, then closure does
> > not matter, but if you want to do actual processing, then I think closure
> > is *very* important.
> What sort of processing? I have been involved with (perhaps a different form of?) SGML
> and XML processing for ten years and I don't really even understand the problem...:-)
> > And it was a pleasure trying to explain whatever I know. I think everyone
> > in this group tries to learn from the other.
> Absolutely - what you know still seems to be whizzing by me a bit, but I appreciate
> your taking the time.
> Marcus Carr email: email@example.com
> Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
> - Einstein