W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: [Bug 5156] 3.4.2 XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:42:41 -0400
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF221C5AEB.F066CC56-ON85257417.00482D2E-85257417.004B52C0@us.ibm.com>
Hmm.  Well.  As succinctly as I can manage: the problem appears to be that 
the appellation "schema components" is overloaded from the point of view 
of those not implementing schema processors, i.e. normal users.  Whereas 
"schema components that users would recognize", e.g. complex type 
definitions, are part of the class of schema components with a "clear 
enough" correspondence (user's pt of view) to something a user codes in 
xsd, there are other schema components that schema users (writers, 
readers) would not immediately recognize, e.g. particles.  "Attribute use" 
is probably borderline; users would recognize attributes, likely not 
"attribute use", but it's not too damaging to pretend one understands in 
this case.
Fwiw, I do see (as a user) value in appending "schema components" to terms 
like CTD because it reminds me that the spec is discussing an abstraction, 
not what I coded in some xsd file.  That distinction is irrelevant for 
purely internal schema components like "particle".  Perhaps this is the 
head's version of the stomach's dilemma.
With this in mind, one might be tempted to place the following immediately 
_before_ section 3.1.1 Components and Properties (of 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema11-1-20070830/ , in case the section 
numbers have changed), as part of Chapter 3's introduction.
The names of many schema components, like the complex type definition 
schema component, correspond closely to the XSDL representation that 
schema authors are typically familiar with and would immediately 
recognize.  Other schema components, such as Particle, do not have a 
single well-known equivalent XSDL representation.  In the sections that 
follow, when significant risk of confusion exists the suffix "schema 
components" is used to remind the reader that the text is concerned with 
the abstract entity rather than its XSDL representation.
That might address the underlying need sufficiently w/o wholesale spec 
changes or the upset of vital organs.

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787

"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org> 
03/24/2008 08:11 PM

John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@w3.org>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Re: [Bug 5156] 3.4.2 XML Representation of Complex Type Definitions

[to comments list, not bugzilla, to avoid cluttering Bugzilla
with this]

On 24 Mar 2008, at 15:07 , bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5156
> ------- Comment #4 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com  2008-03-24 21:07 -------
>> the editors suffered from weak stomachs at the crucial moment and
>     could not bring themselves to formulate the title as "XML
>     representation of particle schema components")
> If PSC is such a horrid phrase, someone will have to explain to me/ 
> us the
> existence of "3.9.1 The Particle Schema Component"

I think the explanation is

   (1) other editors, with other stomachs, wrote that title
   (2) my stomach is willing to remain quiet when some phrases
       are read, but not when they are written

This is not a satisfactory answer, but it does attempt to be an
honest one.  It may be that some threshold is crossed between
a section title with four words, three of which are nouns, and
a title with six words, five of which are nouns.

If we were writing the spec from scratch, I think the text
would benefit from a rule that said "particles are, by
definition, schema components.  So are type definitions and
element declarations and all the rest.  So 'particle schema
component' and 'particle' denote exactly the same thing;
do not use three words where one will do exactly the same

> (still on 3.2.2) This _might_ help incrementally
> from: had not had
> to  : had not specified
> I at least get one less brain fault in the latter rendering.

Thank you; done.  (Will go to the WG with some other
editorial proposals.)

> (still on 3.2.2)  Here is how I am reading it, in case I'm wildly 
> wrong again.
> I might be tempted to add something like this to the new 3.2.2 text.
> "In other words, the case where the {base type definition} T 
> allowed the
> {attribute use} but the restriction prohibits it."

I'll propose a note saying this.

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 13:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:07 UTC