[Bug 1535] [FS] editorial: 2.3.1 Formal values

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1535





------- Comment #7 from jmdyck@ibiblio.org  2006-04-18 21:13 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> 
> I don't believe that writing "hello world!" for string values, and 1 for
> integer values will confuse many people.

Probably not. What I meant was that some readers would be confused about the
different uses of the *term* 'StringLiteral' (etc) in inference rules.

> Since your original comment was about clarifying the notation,

Actually, my original comment was about clarify the object model.

> can you live with the original grammar along with the
> clarifications you suggest?

Yes, I think I can.

How about this:
---
In the production for AtomicValueContent, each symbol in the right-hand side
corresponds to one of the primitive datatypes. For example, "String"
corresponds to xs:string, and "Boolean" corresponds to xs:boolean. (The mapping
is obvious, except that "expanded-QName" corresponds to xs:QName.) Although
there are no explicit productions for these symbols, we assume that each is a
non-terminal that derives a set of syntactic objects, each of which corresponds
to a value in the value space of the corresponding datatype. For instance, the
non-terminal 'String' derives a set of syntactic objects, which appear in
examples as "", "a", "John", etc.; each one corresponds to a string value in
the xs:string value space.  (For familiarity, these objects have been given the
same appearance as StringLiterals from the XQuery and Core grammars; however,
these are formal objects, with a distinct role in the FS.)
---

Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 21:13:19 UTC