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

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> 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.

Well in the case of the highly sketchy proposal from F2F[N-1] the object 
of the # relation really can be a class, it is designated by a URI which 
is related to the XML schema type qname (related either by qname 
concatenation or a SAWSDL annotation); it is not itself the XML schema 
type, just so closely linked that applications can relate the two.

However, I completely agree that there is no direct equivalent of the 
subclass relationship between XML schema types and so the value of using 
# given that you can't use ## is negligible.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England