[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bill Lindsey wrote:
>
> Seems to me that semantics are most naturally
> related to types. ... But we're not allowed to
> use that word here, huh?
> [...]
> What do we call the set of instances that can be
> mapped to a specific base architecture through a
> single architectural form? What do we call the
> set of all instances amenable to processing by a
> single DSDL? If we had names for these things, we
> might find we had a nice hook to which processors
> could attach semantics.
I like your term "representational form", but then
again I don't have a problem with the "document type"
either so I'll continue to use that :-)
> I'm becoming convinced that all XML documents have
> an important property and that we don't have a
> good name for that property.
Common Lisp has a notion that seems applicable to XML.
In Lisp, a type is just a predicate; a value belongs
to the type if the predicate returns non-NIL when
applied to the value.
> [ ... cogent analysis snipped ... ]
> What I don't know:
> * Is the representational form
> property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent?
Maybe all three? I don't think it's a single property
though; there are an infinite number of types to which
a particular XML document belongs, from the universal type
"well-formed XML" down to the singleton set "this document".
Some may be intrinsic by virtue of a declaration
(<!DOCTYPE ...>, xsi:schemaLocation, <?IS10744:arch ...?>,
etc).
> * Is this property fixed for the life of the
> document, or does it change over time?
>
> * Could this property be also be obtained for
> elements?
Sure, why not?
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
