- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:34:35 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: >>>> Proposed: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of >>>> [...] >>> >>> An issue to take into account in discussing this is whether and how >>> it would impact Dave's use case for the membership formula [1]. >> >> After refreshing my memory on the definition of # in BLD, I am a >> little bit ashamed of having started that discussion, here and at the >> telecon (blush)... >> >> However, I think I heard Jos and maybe others say that, in its BLD >> specification, # could not be used to state membership in types >> defined in an XML schema, the way I imagined to use it in my example. >> >> Can someone explain me why? > > Could you send a pointer to the example you mentioned? > > # denotes class membership, and an XML schema type is not the same thing > as a class. > For example, members of a class are also members of all superclasses. > This is not the case for XML schema types. Well in the case of the highly sketchy proposal from F2F[N-1] the object of the # relation really can be a class, it is designated by a URI which is related to the XML schema type qname (related either by qname concatenation or a SAWSDL annotation); it is not itself the XML schema type, just so closely linked that applications can relate the two. However, I completely agree that there is no direct equivalent of the subclass relationship between XML schema types and so the value of using # given that you can't use ## is negligible. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 15:34:55 UTC