Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: Joe English <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Co-operating with Architectural Forms
- From: Bill Lindsey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:09:48 -0800
- Cc: email@example.com
- Organization: B-Bop Associates, Inc.
- References: <3C599F10.firstname.lastname@example.org> <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6362@HQ5> <200201312140.g0VLeuj19647@dragon.flightlab.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
(in response to my question):
>> * Is the representational form
>> property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent?
Joe English wrote:
> 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".
Sure. Or you could say the property has multiple values.
In some processing scenarios, it's useful to
to test a document against some form(s) I already
know something about, and get a boolean.
In other scenarios, it's more useful to get an answer to
to the question: "what is the name of the *principle*
representational form"? Then, if I, the processor, possess
a model of forms that includes predicates such as
"is-a-restriction-of" or "is-arch-form-mappable-to"
other forms, then I can make an informed decision on
how I might process it.
I also asked:
>> * Could this property be also be obtained for
> Sure, why not?
Either you misunderstood my question, or you might
reconsider using "document type" to name this property.