• To: 'Jonathan Borden' <jborden@m...>, Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:00:38 -0600

I tried that one on AI experts some years ago.  Every 
place I wrote IS-A on the chart, they replaced it 
with HAS-A.  The notion that the semantic GI IS-A Type 
doesn't seem to be well-accepted outside the XML 
community.  There may be something to what Steve 
says and namespace disambiguation points that out 
simply because you need a redirection.  It's just a 
name as far as XML is concerned.  We end up having 
to build a lot of infrastructure to make IS-A work 
and that means we are narrowing the options of 
XML.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

It is not a simple fact at least if we are still talking about XML. XML 1.0
says that the _type_ of an element is its name or GI. Generally the 'type
attribute' has a special place in the list of 'attributes', i.e. the "isa"
link. So, not (element has-a GI) rather (element isa GI).  The value, to me,
of the namespace URI is that the "isa" link can traverse the web, which I
find useful. I have no opinion about alpha-renaming, or how you might use
that to traverse the web. In any case it is not typical to equate "isa" and
"has-a" links and I suspect that if you do so, you will lose processing
capabilities.

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread