- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:50:24 -0500
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Feb 11, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
> All this suggests (to me) that having to add an attribute for each
> type system is, well, annoying :) Why not have a pair of component
> properties, {typeSystem} and {type}. And better, let there be two
> attributes in the XML as well. For XML Schema element declarations, we
> can make that omitting the type system attribute defaulst to XML
> Schema element declarations.
So, Arthur pointed out that the type of the attribute is qname which,
for some type systems (like OWL) might be annoying (since OWL names
classes with URIs). This would be a reason to avoid the generic
attributes (or assert that every extended type system supply qname
identifiers or a way of constructing a qname from their native
identifiers). I wonder how this affects the component model...can the
type of the {message} property be a pair ({type system, type system
specific identifer})?
If every type system must add a component property as well, then I
think it's a good idea to make the {message} component more specific
(i.e., {element}). But then the inconsistency of the text should be
resolved in favor of making {element} *only* take its values from the
element attribute.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 11:50:28 UTC