Re: bug in syntax of rif:List

> Hi Sandro,
> 
> Sandro wrote on 29/01/2010 16:12:39:
> >=20
> > I just noticed a problem with the <List> syntax in XML.  Unlike all the
> > other class elements (the capitalized ones), it doesn't allow <id> or
> > <meta> child elements.  [...]
> 
> A bug in RIF? God gracious!

:-)

> > I propose we fix this by moving the list items down into a child
> > element, and then adding the obvious id and meta children.  This would
> > regularize the syntax enough that I wouldn't need to treat List as a
> > special case at all (and I like that idea a lot).
> 
> You mean, that solution, as opposed to simply correcting the bug in the=20
> XSD, e.g., for Core and PRD:
> 
>  <xs:element name=3D"List">
>    <xs:complexType>
>      <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:group ref=3D"IRIMETA" minOccurs=3D"0" maxOccurs=3D"1"/>
>        <xs:choice minOccurs=3D"0" maxOccurs=3D"unbounded">
>          <xs:group ref=3D"GROUNDTERM"/>
>        </xs:choice>
>      </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
>  </xs:element>=20

Yeah.  I'm suggesting that while we're changing the List syntax in this
necessary way, we also put in the <items> role to make the syntax
consistent with the rest of RIF.

> > Is this okay?
> 
> I do not remember why we did not do it like you propose, the first time,
> though it would have been consistent with what we did everywhere else.
> 
> Was there an identified problem with having an (ordered) "items" role
> containing the list elements?
> 
> (Not that I object: actually, I did not even remember that we did
> otherwise; but I am just wondering =5Fwhy=5F we did otherwise).

As I recall, we were in a mood where brevity seemed more important than
consistency.

     -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 16:45:48 UTC