Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Graham Hannington scripsit: > I think that an XML schema is something that describes "the thing", not > the thing itself (feel free to argue otherwise). Some schemas are grammars (those written as DTDs, in XSD, or in RNG), some are not (those written in Schematron or Examplotron). > I tend to use the term "XML vocabulary", because I think that I am > defining something that follows the grammar of XML. But I can see how one > might say that an "XML grammar" (as Shomi uses the term) introduces its > own specific grammatical rules (that is, not just names), within the > bounds of XML grammar, and is therefore itself a grammar. Indeed. "XML vocabulary" seems to be used for the set of element and attribute names associated with a document, without a specific structure. Thus XHTML 1.0 has a single vocabulary but three schemas (all of them grammars): the strict, the transitional, and the frameset. > Is there a standard term? There are several terms according to the distinctions above, I think. Michael Kay scripsit: > "Ontology" also tries to do that, but it's wrong: ontology, (cf > methodology), is the study of how to organize things, it's not the > output of a specific study of a particular area. My psychology is such that I get peeved when people peeve on the extension of words in -ology from an object of study to the subject of that study. Consider, among others, _terminology_ and _technology_. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan <cowan@c...>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
