Re: [ISSUE-37] New proposal on RIF interoperation with XML data and XML Schemas

On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:51, Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

> Hi Bijan,
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>>> They all have
>>>>> different structure, and they can appear at different levels  
>>>>> of  nesting.
>>>>> So it does not make a good sense to just write ?x#ex:Name.
>> And, in fact, they can have different named types associated with  
>> them  as well.
> </chair>
> Well, it is the easy case, when they have different named type,  
> because you can select them by type name, instead of by element name.

I'm just saying that every element (in a context) has a type, named  
or otherwise. I think it's a little dangerous to conflate element/ 

>>> I am not sure this is a good assumption. It feels wrong to me.  
>>> The  different
>>> instances of Name in my example are just different classes. I  
>>> may  chose
>>> to use the same name "because I can" (pardon my plagiarizing of Bill
>>> Clinton :-).
>> And since they can, in fact, have different named types  
>> associated  with them reinforces your point.
> I do not understand how the different named types reinforce  
> Michael's point; but that's maybe not so important, since Michael's  
> point might be beside the point, anyway (see my reply to Michael [1])

No idea.

>> I was just wondering about the status of groups and substitution   
>> groups in this proposal.
> I am confused: isn't that clear from the proposal (section 3.4)?
> Cheers,
> Christian
> [1] 
> 0087.html

Er...that had no 3.4. Oh, I finally got to it :) Thanks!


Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 14:04:27 UTC