Re: Composing language descriptions: tree automata and language design?

MURATA Makoto (murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp)
Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:41:38 -0500 (EST)


Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 07:41:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199803021242.AA00369@murata.apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
From: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, fork@xent.ics.uci.edu, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980301184311.15078B-100000@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Composing language descriptions: tree automata and language design?

In message "Re: Composing language descriptions: tree automata and language 
design?",	Paul Prescod wrote...
> I still don't understand why you had given up on parameterization, or why 
> you changed your mind on it.

Type parameterization is relevant,  because it minimizes 
interdependencies and maximizes reusability.  Forest regular 
expressions have an arguably similar mechanism: substitution variables.

On the other hand, modules or functions in programing languages are not 
at all schemas; they do not describe perimissible data structures.  We 
need schemas for WWW information; by validating a piece 
of information against a schema, we can ensure that this piece is 
processable by a class of WWW applications.

Forest regular expressions provide both schemas and parameterization.
Forest regular expressions are parameterized; they contain subsitution 
variables that can later be replaced with other forest regular expressions.  
Forest regular expressions are schemas; they are equivalent to forest 
automatons in describing a set of permissible forests.

[Mon, 02 Mar 1998 21:29:01 +0900]

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp