- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:45:24 -0400
- To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>
- Cc: jjc@jclark.com, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
MF: Matt Fuchs JC: James Clark >> JC 5. I don't think the formalization should restrict >> JC itself to Schema Part 1. Part 2 also badly needs >> JC the same treatment. > MF The WG is also of this opinion, but one must start somewhere, and > MF doing part 1 is already a significant task. Personally, I think > MF much of the work on part 2 should be done by the people working > MF on operators, as they'll be doing the heaviest thinking on this. > MF However, I think that the general framework for how simple types > MF work (facets, unions, list, derivation) should be included here. > MF It's just a question of getting it done. I agree with James. As far as I can tell, we don't even have a precise and formal definition of the mapping from lexical integer or decimal to the abstract values. Do we actually have anything that prohibits my interpreting the lexical form "123" as the value "321". Why not explicitly set out the appropriate polynomial for the mapping? I don't see why we would necessarily leave that to the operators task force; I think it's a simple lack of clear specification that should be corrected in future versions of Part 2. Indeed, there may be other semantics to be added in conjunction with operators. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 18:49:10 UTC