RE: note from Aram Arapetian

I'm forwarding a note from Aram Arapetian.  I had written
to him in response to LC Issue 11. This is his reply.

All the best, Ashok


---------------------- Forwarded by Ashok Malhotra/Watson/IBM on 05/16/2000
02:47 PM ---------------------------

"Aram Airapetian" <aairapetian@concordesolutions.com> on 05/16/2000
08:16:49 PM

Please respond to "Aram Airapetian" <aairapetian@concordesolutions.com>

To:   Ashok Malhotra/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  RE:



Ashok,

Thanks for reply. I saw the new release of the draft and "accepted" it as
an answer to my concerns. So, no apologies are necessary (I can imagine the
volume of e-mails you are dealing with)!

My other concern was (and is) the size of the standard. Isn't it too
complicated, too big? I appreciate the amount of work you have done and I
don't think that you intentionally made it big. Unfortunately, I do not
have anything concrete to suggest (except my [may be not that deep]
thoughts about numerics in my previous e-mail), but generally speaking, XML
is about simplicity. Did you consider to make it simpler and smaller? Is it
possible?

Thanks,
 Aram.

-----Original Message-----
From: petsa@us.ibm.com [mailto:petsa@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 9:32 AM
To: Aram Airapetian
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re:


Aram:
My apologies for taking so long to reply to your note below.
We have made some changes to the text and corrected some typos.
Now, "date" has a period of 0 (no recurrence) and a duration of 24hours.
"time" has a period of 24 hours and a duration of zero.
I trust that addresses your concerns.

All the best, Ashok

REFERENCED NOTE
================================================================================

The following data type definitions are taken from "XML Schema schema for
XML Schemas: Part 2: Datatypes"

  <simpleType name="date" base="&dtp;recurringInstant">
        <annotation>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='period'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='pattern'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='enumeration'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='maxInclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='maxExclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='minInclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='minExclusive'/></appinfo>
        </annotation>
    <period value="000000T2400"/>
  </simpleType>

  <simpleType name="time" base="&dtp;recurringInstant">
        <annotation>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='period'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='pattern'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='enumeration'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='maxInclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='maxExclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='minInclusive'/></appinfo>
                <appinfo><has-facet name='minExclusive'/></appinfo>
        </annotation>
    <period value="000000T2400"/>
  </simpleType>

How come the 'date' and the 'time' types have the same period? The
"000000T2400" value is period for time. It is 'unit' for date, though. For
date (CCYY-MM-DD, see 3.3.22.1) period is "010000". Am I missing something?

The notions of 'period' and 'unit' might be beneficial for simplification
of numeric type definition. All types 3.2.2 - 3.2.5 and 3.3.9 - 3.3.21
could be defined (derived from decimal) by assigning corresponding
'period', 'unit' and 'signed/unsigned' constraints.


Thanks,

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 15:06:12 UTC