W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

RE: D-AC010.1 discussion points

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 15:44:21 -0700
To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "'wsawg public'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003101c20119$0d9935f0$5b0ba8c0@beasys.com>
Please not that I used the term syntactic schema for a very specific reason.
There are some members of W3C Staff that believe that HTML could be
considered a "schema" language.  Hence why I used the term "syntactic
schema".  This has come up in the TAG discussions on what could/should be
retrievable from a namespace URI.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Christopher Ferris
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: wsawg public
> Subject: D-AC010.1 discussion points
> D-AC010.1
> "Each new architectural area is representable in a syntactic schema
> language like XML Schema."
> MSFT: Change "is representable in a syntactic schema language
> like XML Schema"
> to "has its representation normatively specified in XML Schema".
> CVX: I'd rather have just the more general D-AC010 and leave
> specifics like this unspecified.  If
> representing architectural  areas using schema is a good way
> to implement D-AC010, fine.
> W3C: What if the architectural area has an abstract model,
> and a logical
> way to do this is to model data with an RDF Schema?
> I would propose the following:
>    Each new architectural area is representable in a schema language.
> PF: If an "architectural area" is something like "security",
> "reliability", etc.. then I don't say
> how they can be represented in XML.
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 18:48:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:56 UTC