I think it is dangerous to leave the form of syntactic schema underspecified. At a minimum, it should be a "syntatic schema defined in a W3C Recommendation". Dave H -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:37 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 Thursday, 23 May 2002 11:57:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT