• From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>
• To: "K.Kawaguchi" <k-kawa@b...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:15:10 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: K.Kawaguchi <k-kawa@b...>


> 
> > is a good layer to build upon. I'm not saying that XSD or TREX
> > is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is not a good thing for 
> > the logical layering ( when trying to express the  rules in 
> 
> Would you elaborate it a little more, please? (And also, how about RELAX?)

I'd prefer it another way.

1. Let's assume that I have some schema, expressed in terms of RELAX.
( SQL 'core' == simple CREATE TABLE )

2. Now I want to write some 'more complex' rules / constraints a-la Schematron
( SQL 'layer 2' == constraints and / or  triggers ).

3. I want to write 2 sometimes using the entities which I've defined at the step 1.

How can I do that ?

Rgds.Paul.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
  • RELAX + Schematron
    • From: "K.Kawaguchi" <k-kawa@b...>

• References:
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: "K.Kawaguchi" <k-kawa@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: On RDDL: cool! some ideas requests for help
• Next by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread