[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Kurt,
I wish I could say that I made it through your paper. At the
moment though, I'm hung up on the following section :
<quote>
Suppose that you have two spans S and S' such that for every
configuration s that exists with the span S, there is at least one
configuration s' in S' such that there exists a transformation T() on
s in which s' = T(s). The two spans could then be considered to be
congruent on T.
</quote>
Suppose the definition of T() is that s' is the root element of s.
In that case, one can satisfy the condition where S and S' exist for
the specified T() and yet not have a congruence relation. This is
because the relationship is not symmetric. Am I misunderstanding
something here?
Thanks,
Kenneth
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:30:42 -0800, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I think to a certain extent that you're applying Ted Cobb's "12 rules
> of database design" to XML - in essence, what you've done here is
> given in XML a number of key normalization rules. The challenge that I
> find when attempting to do is the fact that such normalization can
> only occur in situations where there is what I term a low complexity
> to the schema (I address this in a distinctly un-user-friendly paper
> called <a href="http://www.understandingxml.com/archives/2005/01/information_los.html";>Information
> Loss and Schema Complexity</a>, which represents some thoughts I've
> had on gaining a handle on the potentially complex nature of XML. It's
> pretty heavy reading, though I admit that I backed away from going to
> a more formal mathematical notation when I realized just how
> intimidating it looked).
>
|
