Date:         Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:44:22 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Proximity vs recordSchema
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> We use element and subelement a lot with XML processing, but obviously
> it's all based on our actual data, not an abstract model.  I don't see how
> you can have an abstract model that handles proximity between elements.
>
> A little last minute, but we -could- remove the 'element' unit, and I can
> re-invent it under an extension, if people think that it breaks the
> semantics of the abstract record representation.

No! There's no harm leaving it in, and it may be useful in the future. The
current "abstract model" doesn't have to handle it.  Keeping it is a good
reminder that not everything is an abstraction.  And we may further develop
our abstract model so that it better mirrors the physical world, remember,
we did this with Z39.50 attribute architecture.

--Ray