Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Anderson wrote: > Thanks for all the replies to my previous questions on equivClass. I > now have a new problem based on my new understanding. At the moment > there exists equivClass and derived type, but I do not see why both are > necessary as derived type could do the same job. I do not see the need, too. You can find several messages about this by looking at the thread "Schema concepts" > By separating equivalence from inheritance, are we saying that even > elements of the same type or subtypes of the same type are not > necessarily substitutable by one another in every context. For > instance, even if elements "name" and "account number" are both of type > string, they could not be used in place of one another in most context. > Is this the main reason behind the separation of inheritance and > equivalence? "String" is a data type, so name and account number would not be of the same element type, and the problem would not exist. Also, you could allways hinder substitution by deriving a new element locally. Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Haustein University of Dortmund Computer Science VIII www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
|
