[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:10:03 +0000
On 30 May 2001 10:55:34 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I have before. We are staring into UML, RDF, Topic Maps,
> XML Schemas, now add RDDL, TREX, RELAX, etc. It isn't that any tool
> or method alone is hard to grasp, it is the relationships
> among them and how to choose when one is best. In other
> words, if we dare to do less, we should use less maybe.
> But put it altogether and I think interoperability becomes
> a statistical guess. Too many casually aligned parts.
RDDL does at least provide an opportunity to gather the rest of the
parts and make their alignment explicit.
For a nice example, see the RDDL spec itself:
How well the rest of the parts are actually aligned is up to their
creators, of course.