Object-oriented serialization (Was Re: Some questions)
paul at prescod.net
Thu Dec 2 16:44:44 GMT 1999
David Megginson wrote:
> How does the schema tell me that foo represents a container for a
> collection of objects, bar represents an object, and hack and flurb
> represent the object's properties?
It probably doesn't, but Matthew is right that you could imagine a
schema language that DOES
> Object exchange, while
> important, represents only one of many layers that can be build on top
> of XML, and if XML Schemas start trying to solve high-level problems
> for every specific domain, it will become an unimplementable mess.
I would argue that every domain, including documents, has a concept of
"objects" and a concept of "properties." XML's inability to represent
this is, in my opinion, a major flaw. It would be nice if schemas could
work around that flaw but I still think that there is a place in the
world for an instance-only syntax for objects and properties.
> RDF already made a similar mistake by mixing together a spec for
> object encoding in XML with a spec for representing knowledge about
> Web pages.
I agree that this was a mistake and it befuddled me for a while. I see
it as a different situation, however, because I can't imagine a problem
domain that does NOT need to know about structured objects and their
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
"I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more
specific." --Lily Tomlin
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev