[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: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,"Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Simon \"St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:18:16 -0500
Then in a data-centric design, I would concentrate on one
schema language, and more particularly, I would
concentrate on the instances I wish to produce.
Yes? Or what does it mean to say "instances are equal"?
In a relational system, it is as if one designed
the report data, then designed the tables, then designed
the queries that produce the reports. Then they
discover the business rules. Then they create the
Naive yes, but I want an explanation I could give
to a naive person. If I have to resort to explaining
QNames, the explanation is DOA.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
In particular statement  which defines Schema Equality as Instances(a) =
Instances(b), that is two schemata are 'equal' if their instance sets are
equal. One schema might use the XML Schema language and another the RELAX
schema language, but if the set of instance documents are the same, the two
schema are said to be equal. I have not addressed the issue of how one might
actually determine that two schemata are functionally equal, but this is the