[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-schema)
- From: "Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Simon \"St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:38:58 +0100
> > 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.
No, not authority, not a problem, just a lack of expressiveness. I'm
not saying that one way is particularly right or wrong, just that
they're different, and you want to point out why they're different,
what processors that applies to, and so forth. This is a general
issue, but on that has arisen slowly because it took RDDL to come
along and provide at least the first layer, which is to say "hey,
these are the schemata related to this namespace". Now, I know that
the role attributes etc. provide the "why what and how" of it all, but
they still only point to the schema as a whole, and they still have a
lot of information that can only be judged when you understand what
the role/purposes are inherently.
So it'd be great if there were some way of increasing the
> RDDL shouldn't have to know that a constraint has been
> violated by a member unless it is a RDDL constraint.
Again, it is not the fact that a constraint has been violated, it the
different methods of constraint, and the layering and
interrelationships between these layers.
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .