Re: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

Joshua Allen wrote:

>>1. Type-augmented XML is a good thing and a recommendation should be
>>prepared describing it both at the infoset and syntax level. (I gather
> Type-augmented XML needs a type system.  Which are you recommending?
> A) Single spec, which uses one existing type system (XSD, WebOnt, XDR,
> RDFS, etc.)
> B) One spec for each
> C) Single spec that combines many existing type systems
> D) Yet another type system

Good question.  My initial take would be that

  - types should be named by URI
  - assume a subset of the XSD simple types is built-in

but this requires further thought.

>>4. Work on XQuery and other things that require a Type-Augmented Infoset
>>must not depend on schema processing, and should not have normative
>>linkages to any schema language specifications.
> Are you saying that the XQuery type-augmented infoset should be in a
> separate spec (which might have normative linkage to XSD), or that the
> XQuery should be changed to allow *any* type-augmented infoset spec that
> someone chooses to implement?

The first, I think.  But my real basic point is that types are not 
necessarily a consequence of validation. -Tim

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 14:15:04 UTC