- 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