[Bug 3244] Sets of lists

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3244





------- Comment #8 from davep@iit.edu  2007-10-26 13:54 -------
(In reply to comment #6)

>     First, we distinguish ·atomic·, ·list·, and ·union· datatypes.
> 
>     [Definition:] An atomic value is an elementary value, not
>     constructed from simpler values by any means defined by this
>     specification.

Since we have been nit-picking the definitions, it seems to me that the
prescriptions of built-up primitive datatypes (e.g., date/time datatypes,
duration, and precisionDecimal) could be construed as "means defined by this
specification".

Is the important point that an atomic *datatype* cannot be constructed from
simpler *datatypes* by any means defined in this specification?  (And then, of
course, atomic values are values in the value space of an atomic datatype.)

> - [Definition:] Atomic datatypes are those whose value spaces
>         contain only atomic values.  Atomic datatypes are anyAtomicType 
>         and all datatypes ·derived· from it.

    - [Definition:]  Atomic datatypes are those which cannot be constructed
      from simpler datatypes by any construction mechanism defined in
      this specification.

While we construct the built-up datatypes using objects with named properties
whose values are generally real numbers (specifically decimals and integers) or
strings of characters, these values are not "members of the value space" of the
corresponding datatypes,  We refer to them differently; membership in the value
spaces is conferred by intension, not extension, in our spec.  Thus the value
spaces are not constructed using the value spaces of other datatypes.

Granted, at some point we have to stop nit-picking and credit our readers with
intelligence.  ;-)

Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 13:54:57 UTC