It's more like a classification thing. The structure determines the
category or "family" - eg it's a car. The constraints determine the
classification - it's a Toyota Camry which can come in these colours
only etc .... The conforming instance defines the individual.
As a design technique it's invaluable.
Rick
Greg Alvord wrote:
> Rick Marshall Wrote: This is a long way of saying that I think trying to get
> one tool to do 2 fundamentally different things is always going to less than
> optimal.
>
> Perhaps the view that structure and constraints are two separate things
> comes from that fact that to tools we use treats them separately.
>
> At the semantic level structure defines relationships. The constraints of
> the semantic definitions are not separate from the definitions but part of
> it. Constraints like "If the parent has this value in that property then
> there must be a child of this type" do not operate separately from the
> semantic definitions. They are integral to the semantic definitions.
>
>
> Greg
>
> Optimal Blue
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> 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:
> subscribe:
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>
