- 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