- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:38:28 -0600
- To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 11:02 PM 4/22/03 -0400, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote: >Regarding XQuery conformance requirements, Lofton wrote: > >I must be misunderstanding. I thought you said in your prose (above the > >diagram) that having the Static Typing Module requires that you have the > >Schema Import Module, and having the latter requires that you also have > >the Basic Module. > > >I did not think that you meant, Static Typic contains Schema Import, and > >Schema Import contains Basic. *This* would be a layered relationship.... > >They're criss-crossing the verbiage: "XQuery defines a basic conformance >level named Basic XQuery, and two optional features called the Schema >Import Feature and the Static Typing Feature." > >I think the best practice is for them to decide the relationships they >want, treating the "features" as what we call modules, That matches my understanding of the partitioning. >then switch to >the levels terminology only if all can be arranged in a hierarchy. Yes, if it can be arranged in a hierarchy of *containment*. I.e., SI level (level 3) contains ST level (level 2), which in turn contains BX level (level 1). However this is not how I understand the relationships, from your description. What we seem to have is a "hierarchy of dependence". That is not levels. I do NOT want to introduce new terminology (or DoV) into SpecGL, but it might be described as "layered". >They may be trying to say a processor can conform at one of three >levels, in which case conformance at the Static Typing level "contains" >all the others, even though Static Typing when treated as a module >("feature") does not contain Schema Import. > >In those immortal words: I hope that makes clear the unclarity of it. It does. I think you could serve a valuable role by working with Xquery to clarify it, at this early stage, per above discussions. If we're having trouble understanding, then I would expect that others might as well. Regards, -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 11:36:28 UTC