• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:43:41 -0400
• References: <3ECFD6EE.D9C06AD@m...> <02f401c3223a$6bfdab60$b6f5d3ce@L565><026e01c32342$6fd8d1c0$4bc8a8c0@A...><000f01c32347$4ed94d60$6401a8c0@tbp1><002f01c32389$fa79e4d0$4bc8a8c0@A...>

[Rick Jelliffe]
From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

> There can still be validators - they just do not validate using ordinary
schemas.

Yes, and if the source code for these validators were released by the group
who
made the language being validated, with a warrant that it was (as far as it
went)
an correct realization of their standard, it would fill my criteria for a
schema
(from this standards-adoption QA POV), albeit an oddity (although perhaps
the IETF system works a little this way, with the standard being a
description
of the running code.)

[Tom P]

Yes, I was thinking of Reference Implementations with openly available code.

Chees,

Tom P

• References:
  • ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Previous by thread: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread