- From: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:51:56 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>, public-ws-semann-request@w3.org, Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>, verma@cs.uga.edu
Jacek, I agree. This case is essentially the same as having multiple model references on a single type or element. All apply and must be consistent. It looks, then, like SAWSDL needs no precedence or resolution rules. It needs a statement about inconsistency implying invalidity. Regards, Joel public-ws-semann-request@w3.org wrote on 06/06/2006 10:10:45 AM: > > Kunal, > > do you have any specific scenario where precedence rules would be > useful? I feel that if the type says it is an Address, and the element > that uses the type says it is DeliveryAddress, both do apply, right? > I don't really see how we could specify that DeliveryAddress applies > more. > > If there is a conflict, like the type says it is a "Mammal" and the > element says it is a "Car", that would make an inconsistent (and > invalid) SAWSDL document, and I don't think we should hide this problem > by specifying that only Car applies for this particular use of what > elsewhere would be Mammal. > > So in a nutshell, I don't think we need precedence or resolution rules > if we call inconsistent documents invalid. > > Best regards, > > Jacek > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:25 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote: > > Finally, allowing annotations for both elements and complexTypes begs > > the question of which takes precedence when used together. As pointed > > out by Laurent in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006May/0043, the > > approach of giving the element annotation precedence over the type > > annotation seems like the way to go. > > > > "If some internal annotation exists for a complex type as well, any > > "where used" annotation takes precedence over the internal one." > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:52:09 UTC