Re: barenames and Schema Component Designators

On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 11:30 -0700, Mary Holstege wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> In discussing your comment[1] the XML Schema WG realized
> that we need some clarification on what the actual use case
> is before decided what action to take.
> 
> The DAML+OIL example you cite is using barenames with
> a schema document as a left hand side to refer to simple
> types in a schema with no target namespace.

I'm not sure if the lack of a target namespace was on purpose.

>  The OWL syntax
> document that you also cite uses localnames of simple types
> as barenames and the target namespace of the schema for
> schemas as a left hand side to refer to the built in simple
> types.
> 
> So is the entire scope of the use case to refer to
> top-level (named) simple types,

Yes, I think so.

>  or just to top-level
> types in general, or to named components in general?

Named components in general sounds appealing, but I can't
think of any use cases for it just now.

> Are there related use cases that might be more extensive
> e.g. to make assertions about the XHTML 'p' element)?

Well, in theory, yes, but I'm not aware of anybody trying
to do that in practice.

> Are barenames required, or is the requirement a URI reference,
> with a preference for one as simple as possible? If there is a
> requirement for barenames, could you explain the reason?

Hmm... I don't think I can argue that barenames are required;
just that they've been deployed to a certain extent and the
users seem happy.

The biggest argument in favor of them is that they tend
to work across multiple formats.


> 
> //Mary
> 
> [1]  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005JanMar/0080.html
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 18:59:42 UTC