Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > If we know XML documents need to be graphs, why are we working as if they > > are trees? Why do we have schema languages that enforce the treeness of the > > syntax rather than provide the layer to free us from it? > > This is very interesting. Most information models for XML texts > are based on a tree or the hedge model. The support for XML as > a representation for general graphs just isn't "core". I think this depends on what you mean by "core". XSLT, RDF, XLink all introduce graphs to the XML model. I would have thought this is as core as you get. This is not to mention all the auxilliary specs that introduce graphs, including the recent darling RDDL. > Certainly there are "layered" mechanisms for building graphs, > SOAP uses one method, we have the HTML href mechanism, then > we have xlink/xinclude/xpointer trio. All of these are > slightly different, no? Is this what we want? I don't follow the question. Hopefully Rick does. > By far the most interesting (and practical) thread in months, Ha. Rick must be dipping in Wulai again. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
