W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Is the concept of Element Equivalence Classes really needed?

From: David Rosenborg <david.rosenborg@omgroup.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:09:49 +0100
To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>
cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <4125686E.0042A787.00@omext02.omgroup.com>


Yes, I concur that if we need a way to group thigs by *name* your
method is preferable over the superfluous equivalence class construct.
However, in a system where we have types I believe that the most natural
way of grouping is by type, not by names of instances. Infact, the behaviour
you propose could be achieved with my proposal as well:
If we want to create an "open" group we could do the following:

<group name="facet" order="choice">
  <element type="numFacet"/>
</group>

<element name="precision" type="numFacet"/>
<element name="scale" type="numFacet"/>

But in this case the group isn't really needed. It would be, if we wanted to
group
elements of heterogeneous types but still allow for bottom up extension:

<group name="FoosNBars" order="choice">
  <element type="Foo"/>
  <element type="Bar"/>
</group>

Cheers,

</David>





"Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com> on 2000-01-22 06:14:00

Please respond to "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>

To:   David Rosenborg/OMT/OMGROUP@OMGROUP
cc:

Subject:  Re: Is the concept of Element Equivalence Classes really needed?


Your discussion is quite along the same lines as my earlier note

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JanMar/0040.
html

I'm baffled what arguments could be used to justify the complexity of
equivClass's when the same thing can be accomplished much more simply with
groups.




Received on Saturday, 22 January 2000 07:09:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT