ebxml-bp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Submission of SML to W3C - verification of CAM approach!
- From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
- To: CAM OASIS TC <cam@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:37:56 -0700
This was made yesterday to the W3C:
On brief initial review of this - seems like the team has followed very
much the CAM approach here!
Thoughts / differenciators:
1) SML creates a lot of extension syntax whereas CAM uses XPath
directly
2) CAM assertions are business-user friendly syntax - whereas SML uses
arcane logic syntax
e.g. in CAM
setLength(urn:IPAddress,
16)
in SML
<sch:ns prefix="tns" uri="urn:IPAddress" />
<sch:pattern id="Length">
<sch:rule context=".">
<sch:assert test="count(tns:address) = 16">
</sch:assert>
</sch:rule>
</sch:pattern>
</sch:schema>
3) Intriguingly - CAM processor could easily incorporate a SML step as
part of post-processing
4) Does not seem like SML can do anything that CAM cannot
5) CAM can handle multiple structures and structure variances better I
believe - and also context driven parsing.
Anyway - good to have the W3C validating our use case!
DW
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]