- From: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:10:17 +0000
- To: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hi Folks,
Sally says, "XML Schema specifies just syntax."
John says, "XML Schema specifies semantics."
Who is correct?
First, we need to be clear on what is meant by "semantics."
I will define it as such:
The semantics of a thing is its relationships to other things
and its properties.
In this discussion I focus exclusively on "relationships."
Here are examples of expressing relationships:
- Book is an Object.
- Person is an Object.
- author is a property.
- title is a property.
- name is a property.
The examples show a "kind-of" relationship between Book/Person to Object, and author/title/name to property.
"kind-of" is only one type of relationship. There are many others, such as "same-as."
So the question resolves, at least in part, to this:
Does XML Schema allow relationships to be expressed?
With XML Schema you have the ability to create a complexType and then do derive-by-restriction or derive-by-extension on it. For example, you may create a Book complexType that extends a Publishing complexType. Isn't that an example of XML Schemas expressing a relationship? If yes, then isn't it demonstrating that "XML Schema specifies semantics"?
No, not really.
The derive-by-extension and derive-by-restriction capability specifies a complexType by reusing another complexType. That is quite a different thing from expressing a relationship for the purpose of informing.
Here's what Michael Kay said regarding the use of derive-by-restriction and derive-by-extension to specify semantics:
I think it's probably a mistake to try and use the concept
of 'type' to represent an ontological distinction ...
Even if we grant that derive-by-restriction and derive-by-extension specifies a legitimate ontological relationship, it can only specify one type of relationship (namely, subclass). Typically, a much more varied set of relationships is needed to fully inform.
Here's what Eliot Kimber said:
There is no sense in which they [XML Schemas] can be
anything more than a very weak reflection of some deeper
ontology.
Conclusion: XML Schemas specifies syntax only.
What do you think?
/Roger
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 19:10:52 UTC