Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks. As a recap: There are, broadly, two approaches to serializing a graph in XML. One is to invent a meta-grammar, a set of canonicalization rules. That is what RDF syntax did, and what the attribute-centric and element-centric canonical format papers do, what SOAP section eight does. I think of this as "tunnelling the graph through XML." The other is to allow XML documents to follow any pattern described in a schema, and augmenting the schema with a set of mapping rules. There appears to be significant value to each approach. (In particular, however, I disagree with the sometimes-asserted claim that graphs capture the semantics of a communication while grammars do not. Graphs are just another grammar. This makes me reluctant to deprecate grammars.) I agree that formal approaches to mapping would be helpful. I look forward to reading your papers. xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
