[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks for the thoughtful evaluation, Rick. Very helpful.
I was wondering about the relationship to the ISO standard
under development and if XincaML played a role there.
len
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" clbullar@ingr.com
> XincaML - Is this a Schematron analog? It seems to
> fit into the same application space for contraint
> validation.
Yes, it does seem to be another slice of the same pie as XLinkIt (UK), Schematron
(Taiwan/Australia) and XCSL (Portugal). Nice to see some work from IBM PRC:
it would be doubly nice to see some discussion relating to prior art -- what
problems their approach addresses that others do not, a nice dialog could only
improve ISO Schematron further. I guess that will appear in due course.
The distinctive feature of Schematron is not its paradigm (assertion based)
or its query language (Xpaths) but that it expresses patterns detected by rule chains
containing assertions, where each rule selects a disjoint set of candidate elements
and each assertion is an assertion about each candidate, and there is a lexical
priority between rules for candidate selection.
XincaML does not have patterns or rule chains, so it is not Schematron-like
from my view-point. Actually, without some abstract paradigm
(such as "pattern" or "element type") I would characterize it as a constraint
language or dispatch language rather than a schema language.
<snip />
|
