- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:16:22 +0100
- To: Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz@Sun.COM>, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen <Santiago.Pericasgeertsen@Sun.COM>
Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi@Sun.COM> writes:
> But on the other hand, quoting appendix H:
>
> A precise formulation of this constraint can also be offered in
> terms of operations on finite-state automaton: transcribe the
> content model into an automaton in the usual way using epsilon
> transitions for optionality and unbounded maxOccurs, unfolding other
> numeric occurrence ranges
>
> If you unfold the numeric occurrence range as suggested by the above
> paragraph, you get the following, which is clearly an UPA violation.
>
> (s?,u,u?),(s?,u,u?)?
First note that the labels should be, per appendix H
(s1?,u2,u2?),(s1?,u2,u2?)?
But Appendix H goes on to say "Determinize this automaton . . ., then
[erase the position indices] and check it's still deterministic. If
not, UPA violation. The determinized FSA is a bit complex, so I won't
try to draw it here, but it should be clear that since there are only
u2 and s1 labels, if it's deterministic _with_ the numbers, it will be
deterministic w/o them.
My XML Europe paper [1] [2] presents the Appendix H construction in much more
detail and, I hope, with much more clarity.
ht
[1] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/XML_Europe_2003.html
[2] http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xmle03/slides/thompson/thompson1/Overview.html
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 05:16:24 UTC