- 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>
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. Cheers, Dave > -----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