Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
(in response to my question): >> * Is the representational form >> property intrinsic, extrinsic or emergent? Joe English wrote: > Maybe all three? I don't think it's a single property > though; there are an infinite number of types to which > a particular XML document belongs, from the universal type > "well-formed XML" down to the singleton set "this document". > Sure. Or you could say the property has multiple values. In some processing scenarios, it's useful to to test a document against some form(s) I already know something about, and get a boolean. In other scenarios, it's more useful to get an answer to to the question: "what is the name of the *principle* representational form"? Then, if I, the processor, possess a model of forms that includes predicates such as "is-a-restriction-of" or "is-arch-form-mappable-to" other forms, then I can make an informed decision on how I might process it. I also asked: >> * Could this property be also be obtained for >> elements? > Sure, why not? Either you misunderstood my question, or you might reconsider using "document type" to name this property.
|
