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/