(in response to my question):
>> * Is the representational form
>> property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent?
Joe English wrote:
> Maybe all three? I don't think it's a single property
> though; there are an infinite number of types to which
> a particular XML document belongs, from the universal type
> "well-formed XML" down to the singleton set "this document".
>
Sure. Or you could say the property has multiple values.
In some processing scenarios, it's useful to
to test a document against some form(s) I already
know something about, and get a boolean.
In other scenarios, it's more useful to get an answer to
to the question: "what is the name of the *principle*
representational form"? Then, if I, the processor, possess
a model of forms that includes predicates such as
"is-a-restriction-of" or "is-arch-form-mappable-to"
other forms, then I can make an informed decision on
how I might process it.
I also asked:
>> * Could this property be also be obtained for
>> elements?
> Sure, why not?
Either you misunderstood my question, or you might
reconsider using "document type" to name this property.
