Re: Corrected sparqlx schema (sent the wrong one previously)

On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 09:55 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 02:46:05PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > I thought it might be something like that - you'd said your were doing 
> > examples so I followed the examples.
> Even worse, I simply included the wrong schema in my zip file. Doh!
> Here's the "correct" one -- that is, the one that actually schematizes
> the examples.

ah... good... in compact syntax... something I can grok at a glance.
(if there are good schema visualization tools, I don't have any
experience with them).

When I saw Andy's abstract syntax message, I thought "I wonder
what that looks like in RNG syntax".

Now I can compare and contrast...

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 15:28:58 UTC