- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:48:51 +0000
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
>> I think what it boils down to is how one reads this: >> >> If a schema document P contains an<override> element E pointing to some schema document Q, then schema(P) contains not only the components in immed(P), but also the components in schema(override(E,Q)) >> >> My reading is that this definition is circular with no terminating condition. > That's certainly a plausible reading. > > What I do not see is how you can read this sentence as having no termination > condition and the corresponding sentence for cyclic inclusion as having a > terminating condition. > > If a ·schema document· D1 contains one or more<include> elements, > then schema(D1) contains not only immed(D1) but also all the components > of schema(D2), for each ·schema document· D2 identified by an<include> > element child of D1. > That's a good question, and trying to come up with an answer, I think it's probably that with schema(D1) we use a noun as the function name, so it feels like it's asking us to examine a property of D1, whereas with override(E,Q) we use an imperative verb, and therefore it feels like a computation it's asking us to perform. Michael Kay Saxonica
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2011 09:49:23 UTC