- From: Frank Olken <olken@lbl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:20:45 -0700
- To: Jane Hunter <jane@dstc.edu.au>
- CC: mpeg7-ddl <" mpeg7-ddl"@darmstadt.gmd.de>, "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'\"" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org" <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, X3D Contributors <x3d-contributors@web3d.org>
October 13, 2000 Dear Ms. Hunter, The XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months working through the comments received from the public on the last-call draft of the XML Schema specification. We thank you for the comments you made on our specification during our last-call comment period, and want to make sure you know that all comments received during the last-call comment period have been recorded in our last-call issues list (http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues). I am writing on behalf of the XML Schema WG concerning your last call comments concerning the issue of array specifications in XML Schema. This issue is known to the XML Schema WG as LC-151. typed-refs: How do I restrict IDREFs to particular (element) types? LC-151. typed-refs: How do I restrict IDREFs to particular (element) types? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue Class: A Locus: structures Cluster: 20 keys Status: unassigned Assigned to: Frank Olken Originator: Jane Hunter (MPEG-7) Description ------------ How does a schema author use key constraints to specify that a value (which otherwise behaves like an SGML or XML ID) is restricted to pointing at one (or more) particular element type(s)? Interactions and Input ---------------------- Input from Jane Hunter: 4. Typed References MPEG-7 requires 'typed references' or the ability to constrain IDs and IDREFs to particular elements: <element name="SummaryDS"> <complexType>.....</complexType> </element> <attribute name="SummaryDSRef" type="IDREF" refType="SummaryDS"/> Resolution ---------- There is some confusion in the Schema WG as to exactly what sort of constraint you are seeking. We did consider both cases. Case 1: constrain IDREFs to particular named elements Case 2: constrain IDREFs to types of elements (of any name). Case 1 is addressed by the various identity constraints provided by the current draft of Schema Language. These effectively permit one to constrain certain IDs to point to certain named elements. This appears to be what is effectively being sought in the example supplied. See section 4.3.8 XML Representation of Identity-constraint Definition Schema Components of the XML Schema Part 1: Structures, W3C Working Draft 22 September 2000 at the URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ Note that this version of the constraint is similar to traditional key, foreign key constraints in relational database management systems. Note that these constraints are only operative within a single XML document. Case 2 is the analog of reference declarations in programming languages, in which a pointer is constrained to point to a certain type of variable, not particular variables. Case 2 is not presently supported in XML Schema Language Version 1.0. It was excluded because: 1) limited demand for it 2) additional complexity to schema language 3) the expectation that XSLT WG efforts to add type predicateds to XPATH and related XML Query WG efforts would eventually afford a syntax to facilitate incorporating such constraints into the existing identity constraints. Summary ------- Case 1 - Constrain References to named elements - supported in Version 1.0 of XML Schema Language Case 2 - Constrain References to certain complextypes - not now, possibly later Is this response adequate ? ------------------------------ The XML Schema Working Group wants to know your opinion of our response to your last call comments. This information will be included with the package submitted to the W3C Executive Director as part of the recommendation to take the XML Schema Language to Candidate Recommendation. We would appreciate your response as soon as possible. Please indicate whether you wanted Case 1 or Case 2, or both. For each case you are concerned with please choose from one of the following responses, adding whatever details, explanation you wish: 1) "GOOD ENOUGH" - You are satisfied with the Schema WG response to your comments on XML Schema Language. The response meets your requirements. The matter may be considered resolved. 2) "STOP THE PRESSES" - You are not happy with the response to your comments on XML Schema Language. Either the response is unclear or inadequate. The issue is of sufficient importance and urgency that you want it called to the attention of the W3C Executive Director and you ask that the XML Schema Language delayed in advancing to Candidate Recommendation until the issue is resolved. 3) "LATER - VERSION 1.1" - You are not happy with the response, but are prepared to defer reconsideration until XML Schema Lang. Version 1.1 is drafted. It is anticipated (hoped) that Version 1.1 will be completed by mid-2001. Version 1.1 is intended primarily to fix small issues needed by other W3C Working Groups to proceed with their work (especially XML Query Language). You request that your comments be reconsidered when drafting the Version 1.1 requirements document. 4) "LATER - VERSION 2.0" - You are not happy with the response, but are prepared to defer consideration until XML Schema Language Version 2.0 is drafted. It is anticipated that Version 2.0 would not be completed until late 2001 or early 2002. Version 2.0 may include major revisions, e.g., multiple inheritance, etc. You request that your comments be reconsidered when drafting the Version 2.0 requirements document. 5) "NO LONGER CARE" - You are not happy with the response, but no longer care to pursue the matter, because .... Frank Olken XML Schema Language Working Group Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (510) 486-5891 (voice) Mailstop 50B-3238 (510) 486-4004 (fax) 1 Cyclotron Road (510) 843-5145 (home) Berkeley, CA 94720, USA (510) 442-7361 (pager) E-mail: olken@lbl.gov WWW: http://www.lbl.gov/~olken/
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 15:20:37 UTC