W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: ISSUE-43 ISSUE 41 - Proposed resolution for membership and classification

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <47876964.9050007@inf.unibz.it>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>>> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of 
>>> [...]
>> An issue to take into account in discussing this is whether and how it 
>> would impact Dave's use case for the membership formula [1].
> After refreshing my memory on the definition of # in BLD, I am a little 
> bit ashamed of having started that discussion, here and at the telecon 
> (blush)...
> However, I think I heard Jos and maybe others say that, in its BLD 
> specification, # could not be used to state membership in types defined 
> in an XML schema, the way I imagined to use it in my example.
> Can someone explain me why?

Could you send a pointer to the example you mentioned?

# denotes class membership, and an XML schema type is not the same thing 
as a class.
For example, members of a class are also members of all superclasses. 
This is not the case for XML schema types.

So, # cannot be used for XML schema type membership in the general case.
However, if you have a specific kind of reading of XML schema types 
(e.g. an object-oriented reading in which XML schema types are seen as 
classes), it might be possible to use #.  However, I did not understand 
this reading well enough to see whether # could indeed be used here.

Best, Jos

> Thanx,
> Christian


Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
   -- George Bernard Shaw

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 13:04:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:49 UTC