- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:53:14 -0700
- To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
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 UTC