[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
> But I do not understand the reasons for the "er" translation. It seems
> like you have entity types like "complexTypeDefinition", "attributeUse",
> "attributeDeclaration" and so on, and you are trying to understand how an
> author has written a schema better, rather than the actual information the
> schema contains..
Note I'm just using the schema domain as I happen to have examples of
everything I need to hand, i.e. existing data model/ontology and vernacular
XML representation.
So none of this has to do with understanding W3C XML Schema at all,
rather the idea of a 'vernacular'--'generic' dimension along which to
classify XML document types.
The er: fragment I gave is an example of generic XML encoding of a
data model. In the particular model at hand, "complexTypeDefinition",
"attributeUse" and "attributeDeclaration" were the relevant entity
types, but the whole point of the generic style is that _any_
data-model vocabulary can be used with that fixed tagset.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
