• From: "K.Kawaguchi" <k-kawa@b...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:39:14 -0800

> So my comment is this: doesn't the presence of these tricky ambiguity issues
> mean that to actually understand RELAX (and presumably certain other schema
> languages)  requires a computer scientist not a data modeler?

No. Nobody has to be a computer scientist to write a schema(grammar) in
RELAX (or others), just like nobody has to be a motor mechanic to drive
a car.

And as for the union issue, to compute the union of two grammars is
fairly trivial in RELAX. (I'm not so sure about other languages)

regards,
----------------------
K.Kawaguchi
E-Mail: k-kawa@b...

• References:
  • Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by Date: Check XML for well formedness
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread