W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2010

Re: bug in syntax of rif:List

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:45:39 -0500
To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <31740.1264783539@waldron>

> Hi Sandro,
> Sandro wrote on 29/01/2010 16:12:39:
> >=20
> > I just noticed a problem with the <List> syntax in XML.  Unlike all the
> > other class elements (the capitalized ones), it doesn't allow <id> or
> > <meta> child elements.  [...]
> A bug in RIF? God gracious!


> > I propose we fix this by moving the list items down into a child
> > element, and then adding the obvious id and meta children.  This would
> > regularize the syntax enough that I wouldn't need to treat List as a
> > special case at all (and I like that idea a lot).
> You mean, that solution, as opposed to simply correcting the bug in the=20
> XSD, e.g., for Core and PRD:
>  <xs:element name=3D"List">
>    <xs:complexType>
>      <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:group ref=3D"IRIMETA" minOccurs=3D"0" maxOccurs=3D"1"/>
>        <xs:choice minOccurs=3D"0" maxOccurs=3D"unbounded">
>          <xs:group ref=3D"GROUNDTERM"/>
>        </xs:choice>
>      </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
>  </xs:element>=20

Yeah.  I'm suggesting that while we're changing the List syntax in this
necessary way, we also put in the <items> role to make the syntax
consistent with the rest of RIF.

> > Is this okay?
> I do not remember why we did not do it like you propose, the first time,
> though it would have been consistent with what we did everywhere else.
> Was there an identified problem with having an (ordered) "items" role
> containing the list elements?
> (Not that I object: actually, I did not even remember that we did
> otherwise; but I am just wondering =5Fwhy=5F we did otherwise).

As I recall, we were in a mood where brevity seemed more important than

     -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 16:45:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:57 UTC