[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
OR satisfies(S1)-weakly/strongly.
If this were easy, I'm not sure it would be fun to ponder.
But for anyone who wants to dig into the background, read
Niels Jerne's papers on vertebrate immune systems as networks and
generative grammars. I suspect this means dynamically
generating anti-schemas from schemas given an initial
instance.
If schemas are mini-networks (they are graphs, yes?), and there
are relationships among these (have to be if one has a
compound document) there is a possible analogy.
Where does this model lead?
I don't know. That's why, for me, it's fun.
But I think there is a symmetry with the problems of
dynamically evolving namespaces, versions, and
unchanging URIs although that has no connection to
why I am reading in this topical domain.
len
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com]
Most of this goes into my "incomprehensible to a mere computer scientist"
bucket, but the idea of an anti-schema is one I like. I wonder how many of
the restrictions in the capability of XML Schema disappear if we define the
constraints on a document using expressions such as satisfies(S1) and not
satisfies(S2)?
I expect someone will tell me there is a vast body of theory on forming the
union and intersection of regular grammars...?
Shame that in XSLT and XQuery, failing to validate against a schema is
always a fatal error.
|
