Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
OR satisfies(S1)-weakly/strongly. If this were easy, I'm not sure it would be fun to ponder. But for anyone who wants to dig into the background, read Niels Jerne's papers on vertebrate immune systems as networks and generative grammars. I suspect this means dynamically generating anti-schemas from schemas given an initial instance. If schemas are mini-networks (they are graphs, yes?), and there are relationships among these (have to be if one has a compound document) there is a possible analogy. Where does this model lead? I don't know. That's why, for me, it's fun. But I think there is a symmetry with the problems of dynamically evolving namespaces, versions, and unchanging URIs although that has no connection to why I am reading in this topical domain. len From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] Most of this goes into my "incomprehensible to a mere computer scientist" bucket, but the idea of an anti-schema is one I like. I wonder how many of the restrictions in the capability of XML Schema disappear if we define the constraints on a document using expressions such as satisfies(S1) and not satisfies(S2)? I expect someone will tell me there is a vast body of theory on forming the union and intersection of regular grammars...? Shame that in XSLT and XQuery, failing to validate against a schema is always a fatal error.
|
