RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Then could you add another document, say a topic map, 
or a new bag-o-XLinks to express that?

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]

> > 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
expressiveness.

> 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.