RE: What is this simpleType's "base" type?

Thanks again Mukul and Michael.

There must be an appropriate name for "Named simpleType A depends on named simpleType B"

That is, ignoring the details of A, at a macro level simpleType A directly depends on another named simpleType called B. It is useful to identity the sequence of dependent named simpleTypes.

Perhaps, get-named-dependent-type(...)

What do you think about that?

/Roger


-----Original Message-----
From: Mukul Gandhi [mailto:gandhi.mukul@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:14 AM
To: Costello, Roger L.
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: What is this simpleType's "base" type?

The point which Mike answered is correct I believe.

For other ones, I'll have a take on them.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

> If one is the "base" type then what is the other?

The other one is itemType of the list (the list type is the "base"
type you've mentioned above).

> What would you name a function that, given LotteryNumbers, returns the list type?
>
>     get-xxx(LotteryNumbers) returns
>
>            <xsd:simpleType>
>                <xsd:list itemType="OneToNinetyNine"/>
>            </xsd:simpleType>
>
> What name would you replace xxx with?

I think the commonly used term to express "xxx" here is simply base
type. So you may name xxx here as base-type probably.

or perhaps,
getType(LotteryNumbers, "base")

could say that retrieve the base type of the type LotteryNumbers.

> What would you name a function that, given LotteryNumbers, returns OneToNinetyNine?
>
>     get-yyy(LotteryNumbers) returns
>
>    <xsd:simpleType name="OneToNinetyNine">
>        <xsd:restriction base="xsd:positiveInteger">
>            <xsd:maxInclusive value="99"/>
>        </xsd:restriction>
>    </xsd:simpleType>
>
> What name would you replace yyy with?

I think this may be better done with two function calls, for e.g,

getItemType(getType(LotteryNumbers, "base"))

this may return the itemType of list, if that is the case or null otherwise.




-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 10:29:25 UTC