Re: why distinguish between simple and complex types? (issue 11)

Rama,

The precedence issues I was referring are between external and internal
annotations of complexTypes.

You could have an element annotated with "ConceptX"

<element name="X" type="XType" modelReference="ConceptX"/>

However, the type of that element could be a complexType which has its own
annotation.

<complexType name="XType" modelReference="ConceptY">
.....
</complexType>

The issue I was referring to was regarding which annotation should get
preference between the two.


Thanks,
Kunal


On 6/5/06, Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Kunal,
>
> Were you referring to precedence issues on these two examples? because if
> so, these examples don't really present such issue. In example 1, complex
> type annotaton doesn't really say anything about what annotations apply to
>
> leaf node elements. So, there is no conflict.
>
> I think when you mention conflicts you are talking about in the context
> where a schema mapping is specified at a complex type in addition to model
> references on the contained elements. If so, if I understand you correctly
>
> you are making two independent points in this e-mail. Is that correct?
>
> So, here is a summary of  why we need to distinguish between simple and
> complex types based on all the discussions.
>
> a simple type can only have model references and no schema mappings where
> as a complex type can have both model references and schema mappings.
> These
> schema mappings specified at a complex type can have an implication on the
> model references of simple types contained in a complex type. That's why
> we
> need to differentiate simple and complex types.
>
> Regards
> Rama Akkiraju
>
>
> kunal.verma1@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2006 05:25:13 PM:
>
> > Jacek,
> >
> > From our point of view, it would be nice to be able to annotate
> > complexTypes, elements and simpleTypes. Jacek's example illustrates
> > the first two (note, we changed the outer element to complexType).
> > The second example illustrates the use of a simpleType.
> >
> > Example 1:
> >
> > <complexType name="Name" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#name">
> >    <sequence>
> >       <element name="Title" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#title"/>
> >       <element name="First" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#firstName"/>
> >       <element name="Last" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#familyName"/>
>
> >    </sequence>
> > </complexType>
> >
> > Example 2:
> >
> > <xs:simpleType name="fahrenheitWaterTemp"
> >    sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#FahrenheitWaterTemperature">
> >    <xs:restriction base="xs:number">
> >       <xs:fractionDigits value="2"/>
> >       <xs:minExclusive value="0.00"/>
> >       <xs:maxExclusive value=" 100.00"/>
> >    </xs:restriction>
> > </xs:simpleType>
> >
> > 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/P
> > ublic/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."
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John Miller and Kunal Verma
> >
> >
> > On 6/5/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > below is an excerpt from Rama's analysis of the relation of
> > > modelReference and schemaMapping. The quoted part restricts
> > > modelReferences to be allowed only on schema leaf elements.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Rama Akkiraju wrote:
> > > > Definition of Simple modelReference:
> > > > ModelReferences that point to a single concept in the ontology via
> > > > one-to-one association. Simple modelReferences are specified at the
> level
> > > > of individual (leaf) elements in an XSD.
> > >
> > > Rama, I wonder why you have the restriction?
> > >
> > > Using the common structured name example, one could have something
> like
> > > this:
> > >
> > > <element name="Name" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#name">
> > >   <sequence>
> > >     <element name="Title" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#title"/>
> > >     <element name="First" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#firstName"/>
> > >     <element name="Last" sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#familyName"/>
> > >   </sequence>
> > > </element>
> > >
> > > Basically, there is a trivial one-to-one correspondence between the
> > > element Name and the ontology class "name". Do you think that
> expressing
> > > this correspondence with modelReference may be harmful?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Jacek
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>