- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:59:29 -0500
- To: holstege@mathling.com
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
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