- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:53:18 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: howardk@fatdog.com, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 15:06 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: ... > I'm no schema wonk (which is fine, btw :)), but looking at: > > <xs:element name="result"> > <xs:complexType> > <xs:group minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="res:var"/> > <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/> > </xs:complexType> > </xs:element> > <xs:group name="var"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:any namespace="##targetNamespace" processContents="skip"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:group> > > That processContents="skip" is a consequence of not having a fixed set > of names for the binding forms and that is unfortunate. > > I would prefer for the element children of resutls to be fixed and data > bindable. .. I'm not familiar with what you mean by "data bindable". Some fixed mapping between XML elements and ?? programming language concepts? objects? Could you give a little more context. > ... > I would also like to use xsi:type to enforce schema > processing of their children. Does that mean having xsi:type on the children of <results> or do you mean using an external typing method for the xml elements? I was only proposing inline xsi:type and nothing much type-related hidden in the WXS file, leaving it to deal mostly with the VBR XML structure. > Heck. It'd be nice to be able to distinguish bindings with a node vs. a > literal content. If we can't distinguish by attribute value, then i'd > be in favor of things like nodeVar, literalVar, etc. That's the difference in RDF Terms - URI vs Blank Node vs Literal (vs Datatyped literal?) (RDF Term being from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#GraphPatterns ) > I do not yet intend this as a proposal. I hope to flesh it out a bit > more. Deadlines and illness have interceded a bit. > > But even the little bit more schema processing seems worth it to me. > > I did some experiments with kendall on Dave's example transform scripts > to HTML tables, and it doesn't complicate them significantly (to my > eye). Also, you can, in XQuery, use typecase (or whatever it's called) > which might have optimization and safety advantages. Maybe you could try the result2 forms I mentioned, attached to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0364.html Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 14:54:02 UTC