Date:Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:18:13 GMT
Reply-To:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Proximity vs recordSchema
Comments:To: [log in to unmask]In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]> (message from Robert Sanderson on Fri,
13 Feb 2004 11:33:35 +0000)
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:33:35 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > > I don't see how you can have an abstract model that handles
> > > proximity between elements.
> >
> > Sure you can. XML is not the only way to represent structured data,
> > you know! (You'll remember that the element and subElement proximity
> > units in Z39.50 predate the invention of XML (though not, of course,
> > of SGML).)
>
> If you don't have a schema (in the abstract sense), how can you have
> proximity between distinct data elements?
You can't. But who says you don't have a schema? Not me.
> If you have a schema for your data, then the completely abstract
> data model is diluted [...]
I prefer the word "augmented".
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I saw one of the Democrat delegates, a middle-aged man,
driving a bumper car while talking on his cellphone.
It's time for the Revolution" -- Dave Barry.
--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/