Re: [xml-dev] RE: Abstraction in Science, Mathematics, Software, and Mar

[Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Or even

  <xsd:complexType name="appliance-type">
        <xsd:sequence>
            <xsd:complexType type="string" />
            ...
        </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>

What I have come across like this, though more abstract still because
it isnt specific about XML (which itself would be a concretion) or EDI
but an abstraction above those, is ISO 15000 CCTS. Here you define
core components which are composed of other core components and
core component types. They are what you might call the abstraction
(I'm not sure they are actually specified using that term at all though)
and the concrete entities for the core components are called business
information entities (BIEs). The BIEs MAY be represented using XML
(or EDI or whatever) - the CCTS doesn't specify how to represent
them. Universal Buisness Language implements this Core Components
Technical Specification as do quite a few other XML business languages.


----
Stephen D Green



On 12 March 2011 09:05, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you suggesting or even hinting that it should be possible
> to define a type whose contents are types rather than elements?
>
> e.g something like this should be possible
>
>  <xsd:complexType name="appliance-type">
>        <xsd:sequence>
>            <xsd:complexType ref="model-number-type" />
>            ...
>        </xsd:sequence>
>    </xsd:complexType>
>
> or
>
>  <xsd:complexType name="appliance-type">
>        <xsd:sequence>
>            <xsd:type ref="model-number-type" />
>            ...
>        </xsd:sequence>
>    </xsd:complexType>
>
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
> On 11 March 2011 20:55, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Is there a difference between abstraction and reuse?
>>
>> Suppose I observe that all appliances have a model number, a description, and a warranty. Subsequently I create this complexType:
>>
>>    <xsd:complexType name="appliance">
>>        <xsd:sequence>
>>            <xsd:element name="model-number" type="xsd:ID"/>
>>            <xsd:element name="description" type="xsd:string"/>
>>            <xsd:element name="warranty" type="xsd:string"/>
>>        </xsd:sequence>
>>    </xsd:complexType>
>>
>> Is that complexType an abstraction?
>>
>> It is clearly a reusable thing. But I am not convinced that it is an abstraction because it is hardcoded to specific element names. What do you think?
>>
>> Do you think that we (the XML community) have powerful mechanisms for creating abstractions? If not, what is missing? If yes, please provide an example of a powerful abstraction that you have created or you have seen created. What makes it powerful?
>>
>> /Roger
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
>> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
>> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>>
>> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
>> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
>> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
>> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>>
>>
>