Lists Home |
Date Index |
It might be interesting to compare schemas corresponding
to object frameworks for a complexity measurement comparison
to 'documents' if there is some definition for document
that enables one to classify one on sight.
Ontologies always come down to a test.
From: Michael Kay [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Once again, what is a critical use case in the "data" world is an
> annoying hinderance to getting work done in the 'document ' world :-)
> (and vice-versa, I'm not taking sides!).
Actually, it's quite useful to be able to write an XSLT template rule that
matches all "inline" elements; the more complex and extensible your schema
becomes, the more useful this is; and the most complex schemas I have seen
are in the "document" world.
Doing this relies on associating types with elements. I think the notion
that types are useful only in the "data" world is misguided. In fact, XSLT
1.0 patterns can be seen as an attempt at typing that provides a subset of
the information you can get from schema processing, but leaves it entirely
to the programmer to maintain consistency between the schema and stylesheet,
which becomes more and more laborious as the schema grows.