W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Formal Description comments

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:45:24 -0400
To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>
Cc: jjc@jclark.com, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1ECE5600.D61D760C-ON85256A32.007C7140@lotus.com>
MF: Matt Fuchs
JC: James Clark

>> JC 5. I don't think the formalization should restrict 
>> JC    itself to Schema Part 1.  Part 2 also badly needs
>> JC    the same treatment.

> MF The WG is also of this opinion, but one must start somewhere, and
> MF doing part 1 is already a significant task.  Personally, I think
> MF much of the work on part 2 should be done by the people working
> MF on operators, as they'll be doing the heaviest thinking on this.
> MF However, I think that the general framework for how simple types
> MF work (facets, unions, list, derivation) should be included here.
> MF It's just a question of getting it done.

I agree with James.  As far as I can tell, we don't even have a precise 
and formal definition of the mapping from lexical integer or decimal to 
the abstract values.   Do we actually have anything that prohibits my 
interpreting the lexical form "123" as the value "321".  Why not 
explicitly set out the appropriate polynomial for the mapping? 
I don't see why we would necessarily leave that to the operators task 
force;  I think it's a simple lack of clear specification that should be 
corrected in future versions of Part 2.  Indeed, there may be other 
semantics to be added in conjunction with operators.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 18:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:56 UTC