W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > May 2005

barenames and Schema Component Designators

From: Mary Holstege <holstege@mathling.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:30:15 -0700
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.sp5u0ppxpwddar@dhcp141.cerisent.com>


In discussing your comment[1] the XML Schema WG realized
that we need some clarification on what the actual use case
is before decided what action to take.

The DAML+OIL example you cite is using barenames with
a schema document as a left hand side to refer to simple
types in a schema with no target namespace. The OWL syntax
document that you also cite uses localnames of simple types
as barenames and the target namespace of the schema for
schemas as a left hand side to refer to the built in simple

So is the entire scope of the use case to refer to
top-level (named) simple types, or just to top-level
types in general, or to named components in general?
Are there related use cases that might be more extensive
e.g. to make assertions about the XHTML 'p' element)?
Are barenames required, or is the requirement a URI reference,
with a preference for one as simple as possible? If there is a
requirement for barenames, could you explain the reason?


Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 18:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:30 UTC