RE: building an object model of a XML schema

[Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>]

> "markup is not 
> programming" 

Whoa there, cowboy! 

In no way did I intend suggest that we write actual programs in this stuff.
If I say 'hash map' to a C++ or Java programmer, they understand what I mean
although their implementations might differ. If I say "store these elements
in a hashmap (if you can), here's the key" in a schema, then I haven't
programmed a thing. The XML data model would say "hash map? what the heck is
that? I'll ignore it." The C++ model would say "Oh, I getcha... I have just
the thing."

Right now, that information is missing from XML Schema, and various code
generation implementations have their own unique ways of adding the
information. As it should be? I hope not.

Commit to a language? Yep, but an abstract language. It's like committing to
UML, but simpler (well, you say not, but how can it not be? It's a simpler
domain). No methods, just well-known 'archetypes'. Just as I don't know how
an XML Schema double is mapped to a specific language, I wouldn't know how
the archetype got implemented, or even what API the implentation was. It is
a performance definition, if you will. Defined, not directed.