Re: Restricting Wildcards

"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> writes:

> Is the following restriction valid: 
> 
> BASE: 
> <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> 
>   <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="skip" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> 
> </xs:sequence> 
> 
> 
> DERIVED: 
>      <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> 
>            <xs:element name="A" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> 
>            <xs:element name="B" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> 
>      </xs:sequence>
> 
> 2 There is a complete ·order-preserving· functional mapping from the particles in the {particles} of R to the particles in the {particles} of B such that all of the following must be true: 

> [Definition:]  A complete functional mapping is order-preserving if each particle r in the domain R maps to a particle b in the range B which follows (not necessarily immediately) the particle in the range B mapped to by the predecessor of r, if any, where "predecessor" and "follows" are defined with respect to the order of the lists which constitute R and B. " 

Yup, that looks like a bug to me.  A similar problem would arise with
substitution groups, which are also an implicit disjunction, were it
not for the explicit statement that they are treated _as_ a
disjunction for checking restriction.  We should have said something
similar for wildcards.

I say 'bug' because I think it's clear the _intention_ was that this
should be valid -- certainly the set of valid instances of the
'derived' type def. is a (proper) subset of the set of valid instances of
the base type def.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 04:13:29 UTC