- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:54:30 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:06:01PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > <name> > <first>Dave</first> > <last>Orchard</last> > </name> > > <name> > <first>Dave</first> > <last>Orchard</last> > <middle>Bryce</middle> > </name> > > <name> > <first>Dave</first> > <last>Orchard</last> > <middle>Bryce</middle> > <suffix>II</suffix> > </name> > We want these 3 of these documents to be valid against the 3 schemas. It > seems that the simplest change would be to have a "low priority" wildcard as > mentioned in previous discussions. The schemas using this would be something > like: Can I ask why you wouldn't just use RDF/XML in that case? It gives you exactly the kind of extensibility you seem to require. I understand that there's pushback against RDF/XML in WS circles, but really, solving this problem is *exactly* what RDF was designed for. If you want to give me a detailed example and the versioning/extensibility requirements, I'd be happy to do the conversion to RDF/XML. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 20:54:27 UTC