• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Hodder, Ed" <Ed.Hodder@B...>,"XML-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:46:03 -0600

That is part of the question but it leads 
into an interesting discussion of context 
and the scope of context.  Ask yourself 
why transforms require a side-effect free 
language?  Why can a rule or assertion 
based validation such as Schematron do 
more powerful validation than a regular 
grammar such as a DTD?

The problem so far with "semantic" is the 
lack of clarity about what "to do".  The 
problem I have with Roger's assertion is 
that in fact, data does not interoperate.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Hodder, Ed [mailto:Ed.Hodder@B...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:43 AM
To: XML-Dev (E-mail)
Subject: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices


> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> One may not be satisfied with "application defines 
> semantic", but that is reality.

> From: Roger L. Costello
> Application specific 
> semantics do not facilitate data interoperability.

So is the question really "Will an application's use of XML data be
facilitated by providing that data with a domain or context?"

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by Date: Re: opposition to ISO XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Next by thread: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread