Graham Hannington scripsit:
> I think that an XML schema is something that describes "the thing", not
> the thing itself (feel free to argue otherwise).
Some schemas are grammars (those written as DTDs, in XSD, or in RNG),
some are not (those written in Schematron or Examplotron).
> I tend to use the term "XML vocabulary", because I think that I am
> defining something that follows the grammar of XML. But I can see how one
> might say that an "XML grammar" (as Shomi uses the term) introduces its
> own specific grammatical rules (that is, not just names), within the
> bounds of XML grammar, and is therefore itself a grammar.
Indeed. "XML vocabulary" seems to be used for the set of element and
attribute names associated with a document, without a specific structure.
Thus XHTML 1.0 has a single vocabulary but three schemas (all of them
grammars): the strict, the transitional, and the frameset.
> Is there a standard term?
There are several terms according to the distinctions above, I think.
Michael Kay scripsit:
> "Ontology" also tries to do that, but it's wrong: ontology, (cf
> methodology), is the study of how to organize things, it's not the
> output of a specific study of a particular area.
My psychology is such that I get peeved when people peeve on the extension
of words in -ology from an object of study to the subject of that study.
Consider, among others, _terminology_ and _technology_.
--
But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some
reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains.
I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful
service. --Gandalf John Cowan <>
