- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:32:48 +0300
- To: cmsmcq@acm.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi I am finally getting round to your comments about the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax document. There is one I find particularly surprising. Our text: [[ Each member of the value space may be paired with any number (including zero) of members of the lexical space ]] I understand your suggestion as to change "(including zero)" to "greater than zero". You said: [[ The lexical space of any simple datatype in XML Schema is the domain of the type's lexical mapping; the value space is its domain. ]] If I remember correctly, the reason we have the unexpected "including zero" is because of our understanding of XML Schema Union datatypes. Hence I am seeking clarification. I have asked the WG just now for other reasons why we have this text; but I don't believe there are. So XML Schema example: ===================== <xsd:element name="foo"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:union memberTypes="xsd:string xsd:int"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> The lexical space of the first type masks the lexical space of the second. Thus no integers have a corresponding lexical form. Then the lexical mapping maps no values to the integer 2, but it is in the value space since <foo xsi:type="xsd:int">2</foo> conforms with this type, and accesses the hidden part of the value space. (My XML Schema is weak - I am sure I have made a number of errors, but the objective should be clear enough) Please help me understand where I have gone wrong. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 14:32:32 UTC