Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I think you could (or at least I could) think of a schema as a model. Consider that you can draw diagrams - boxes and lines- to represent n idealized document. For simple document types, a diagram can even be easier to understand than a DTD or XML Schema. There is no real difference between such a diagram and a similar one for a relational database or for an object model (or for an organization, for that matter), except for some language-specific details. And I would consider the relational or object diagram to be a "model", so why not the one for the document grammar? TomP On 12/20/2016 12:25 PM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: John Cowan<johnwcowan@g...> writes:>It's mostly a grammar, but not exclusively. In particular, subtyping by >extension and restriction are data-model-like features that have nothing to >do with whether a particular document conforms to a particular grammar, as >it is always possible to compile them out of the schema.I hesitate to disagree, but using OO-inspired techniques as a concise way to express multiple grammar rules doesn't mean the result isn't still a grammar -- it's just like the use of metarules in GPSG, a notational device. The explicit grammar is expanded by the interpretation/application of the metarules, producing an expanded (implicit) grammar, which is in turn what is used to determine language membership/schema validity.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
