W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Union types derived by restriction

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:24:32 +0100
To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1C9KeU-0004eL-C0@frink.w3.org>

In Schema Part 1 (PER 18 Mar 2004), section 3.14.6, Schema Component
Constraint: Derivation Valid (Restriction, Simple), is the rule:

3.3.2.3 The {member type definitions}, in order, must be validly derived
from the corresponding type definitions in the {base type definition}'s
{member type definitions} given the empty set, as defined in ...

However, I'm having trouble seeing how one can define a union as a
restriction of another union in which the member type definitions differ in
any way from those of the base type definition. <xs:restriction> only allows
me to change the pattern and enumeration facets, not the member types.

For example:

(a) if the base type is a union of decimal and string, can I make the
derived type be a union of integer and string? Unless I'm missing something,
I think not.

(b) if the base type is a union of dateTime, date, and time, can I make the
derived type be a union of dateTime and date? Again, I think not.

So what does rule 3.3.2.3 mean? My suspicion is that it is vacuous.

Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 09:40:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:23 UTC