• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:56:21 -0600

The point is that to decide among means, one must 
bound the definition of system first.  Otherwise we 
spend a lot of time debating means without requirements.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]

You're right that there is probably nothing very new here, but I am
afraid I don't get your point.

Do you mean that such large systems cannot be modeled, that a single
model cannot be shared by all the involved parties or that schema
languages should try to (better) take this requirement into account ?

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