[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > The name is not the same as the thing. I think the whole idea that gi
> > == type to be one of the biggest peices of misinformation around.
Paul Prescod wrote:
> The GI is the name of the type. Of course a name is not the same as the
> thing. Depending on how you look at the universe the "real type" is a
> totally abstract construction or a thing defined in a DTD.
Or if you're used to using XMLSchema, then the mapping from tagname/GI to element
type is defined by the parent element's element type as well; so you're aware that
they are not one_and_the_same.
How element type maps to abstract type is the next level up.
AFs map from one encoding of your abstract information to the one you consider
canonical, and back.
There seems to be a gap for a mechanism that which maps an encoding to an
architecture; for example:
From a EXPRESS information model one can generate a standard encoding for the data
associated with instances of that model's entities by following the rules in the
spec.
Presumably this could be done with appropiate tools.
This mapping is not part of XML syntax, not part of the schema, and non-standard
encodings may not even have a one to one mapping of EXPRESS:entity type to XML:
element type.
As far as data exchange goes, it is only necessary to map the instance document to
a form that the next tool can use, so the AF/ standard encoding approach suffices.
Pete Kirkham
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
|
