override example (was Re: [Bug 12127] "Root element" in assertion testing)

[changing the subject line because I don't detect a relation
to bug 12127]

On Mar 7, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> 
> In trying to work through my understanding of the issues involved, I
> encountered the mini-worked-through-example in the Note in clause
> 3.1.2 of Schema Representation Constraint: Override Constraints and
> Semantics [1]:
> 
>  3.1.2.1 First, the override of B by C is handled. The resulting
>  schema document still contains an <override> element referring to C,
>  but the declaration for E contained in it has been replaced by that
>  specified in C.
> 
> This can't be right.  There _is_ no "<override> element referring to
> C" in the example framing, so it can't "still [be contained]". . .

I think there must be a typo; the sentence should, I think, read "The 
resulting schema document still contains an<override> element 
referring to A [not C], but the declaration for E contained in it has 
been replaced by that specified in C."

Thank you.

> 
> 
> Back to the example -- is this what is meant:
> 
> Note:  Suppose
>  A defines E
>  B has override(E',A)
>  C has override(E'',B)
> Then to determine the schema corresponding to C:
> 
>  1) The override of B by C is handled.  The result is
>     A defines E
>     B' has override(E'',A)
>     C "has" include(B')
> 
>  2) The override of A by B' is handled.  The result is
>     A' defines E''
>     B' "has" include(A')
>     C "has" include(B')
> 
>  3) The final result is
>     C defines E''
> 
> Right?

That's not a notation or a way of calculating these relations
I'm used to, but if I follow, then I think so.


-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:56:54 UTC