- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:00:37 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[resending with correct subject and threading -- sorry!]
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but the declaration for E contained in it has been replaced by that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 note furthermore that a one-time name is defined in the constraint
but, as far as I can see, never used, namely *S2*.
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?
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.html#src-override
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFNdlKlkjnJixAXWBoRAlVOAJ0a0vWfDNc+t7j/H+KTRmeeh3VU3wCfUn1y
upXrckw+Esnfei/iFR5K+GY=
=IMgr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 16:01:24 UTC