[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com>,"Simon \"St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:20:23 -0500
From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Then RDDL is a catalog of relationships among components
>> of some system.
>But it only works on the schema level - not on what's inside the
>schemata. For example, it could point to two schemata, one in TREX,
>one in XSD. One could say that a certain element is allowed in place
>x, and the other could say that it isn't. Which is to be believed?
The authority problem. I'd say that was not RDDL's job. The person
who writes the RDDL should have worked that out. RDDL shouldn't have
to know that a constraint has been violated by a member unless it is
a RDDL constraint.
>Then you might have the more subjective layer, which is to say that
>the purpose of this element is y, so go and work out whether or not
>you are allowed to use this in place x. That's the kind of layering
>I'd like to see provided in RDDL somehow, but I'm not quite sure how
>to do it.
Again, except for role attributes, etc., that is not RDDL's job.
It sounds like what should have been done earlier, similar to the
way one has to sort the business rules separately from data.
Don't topic maps point interdocument, provide descriptions, etc? Aren't
Topic Maps a form of contraint documentation? Isn't any form of
relationship model, a constraint declaration?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h