W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2004

[DM] BEA_008

From: Daniela Florescu <danielaf@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:20:54 -0800
Message-Id: <E4DE7D67-603F-11D8-9D91-0003937198F4@bea.com>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org

Data Model: inconsistency, major

The Data model takes an inconsistent position with respect of elements
resp. attributes that are labeled with type annotation xdt:untyped, 
resp.
xdt:untypedAtomic.

In section 6.2.4 it is stated that an element AND all it's ancestors 
have to have a
validation property "valid" for the element to be labeled with a Qname 
different then
xdt:untyped.

This would mean that, as a side effect of this definition the following 
constraint
should hold: if an element has type annotation xdt:untyped, then all 
it's descendent
elements have also a type annotation xdt:untyped.

Does this constraint indeed hold ? was this the intent of the 
specification ? If yes,
please state this constraint explicitly.

On the other hand, other portions of the specification do NOT require 
the ancestors
to be valid. Section 3.3.1 is one example. Section 6.3.2 that deals 
with type annotations
of attributes seems to be inconsistent with it since it doesn't look at 
the validity of the
ancestors. Moreover, the computation of the nillability property also 
ignores the validity
of ancestors, potentially creating inconsistent data model instances.

What is the intent here ?
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 00:20:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:57 UTC