Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Daniel Rivers-Moore
| 
| Looking at Lars's approach based on XML Infoset, I am extremely
| concerned that it is far too close to the XTM syntax. I don't want
| information objects corresponding to the elements in the XTM
| document. I want the information objects to reflect the meaning of
| those elements, which are much closer to the conceptual model.

I too want the information structure to reflect the semantics of the
XTM documents, but it seems that we do not interpret this the same
way. I have seen others besides you comment that my model is too close
to the syntax, but I don't really understand why this is considered
objectionable. 

Could someone explain where they think my model goes wrong, and
suggest how they would like to see it changed? For example, there are
base names in the model, aren't there? And they do have a scope, a
name value and a tree of variants, do they not?
 
| These are classes that are never instantiated in the syntax. Could
| these be the middle layer objects that Lars really wants?

I will look at this as soon as I can.

--Lars M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EVNB7A/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/