W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2000

Re: SOM

From: Steffen Stundzig <steffen@smb-tec.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:38:02 +0100
To: "David Valera" <dvalera@pcl-hage.nl>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <20001214143802.50e3d05c.steffen@smb-tec.com>
Hi,

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:23:40 +0100
"David Valera" <dvalera@pcl-hage.nl> wrote:

> > Yes. Thanks. It would help if I only use DOM inside of my
> > applications.
> > But if I work with SAX, I have my old problem.
> 
> Then you would need an extension of SAX that would also 'model' XML schema.

Or I have an independent object model that I can reuse everywhere.

> > So I think it's useful to have a XML Schema object model
> > intependent of
> > DOM. In my first email, I used DOM only as an example of what I mean
> > with object model.
> 
> I don't think it would be wise do develop a new object model to represent
> XML schema. DOM represents XML files in general, and XML schema's, being XML
> files, should be modelled in DOM.

I wouldn't represent the schema as XML especially DOM. 

Each element in a schema has it's own semantic. The target of the 
schema object model is to 'model the semantic' of each schema element 
not to show that XML Schema is hierarchical structured such as XML.

In each of the products I listed in my first email exists classes that
represents a AttributGroup or a Element or a Annotation with a special
designed class. And this classes are what I would standardize with SOM. 


Regards
	Steffen...

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Steffen Stundzig                            mailto:steffen@smb-tec.com
SMB GmbH                                        http://www.smb-tec.com
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 08:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:19 GMT