[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Very interesting...
IMHO:
To understand a "complex" component based upon the construction or integration of "simple" (elemental) well-defined components, you need to know the "rules" of organization or interaction (the *framework* of how those simple components must work together to achieve a specific task).
Then, if everyone knows the components "A", "B" and "C", the construction "ACCACBABB" it could not be done, if you don't define a set of rules (agreement or contract) that I can understand to "manage" the new complex component.
Besides that, the set of "rules" of organization (the grammar that glue the components) would define the "semantics" of interaction of the simple components --> the use of RDF and the Semantic Web.
All the best,
Sergio Rodríguez.
"Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
Everyone understands the meaning of each component in the Schema.
2. But there is no declaration tying the components together, e.g., there is
no overarching element declaration that relates the Book component with the
BookCover component.
If I create an XML instance document using the components and send the
instance document to you, will you be able to understand my data?
/Roger
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Net: La mejor conexión a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por
$100 al mes.
|
