- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 12 Apr 2001 18:35:23 +0100
- To: Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com>
- Cc: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Ian Stokes-Rees <ijs@decisionsoft.com> writes: > > If you did this for namespace-less schema, then you really should allow it for namespaced-schemas for symetry. I might have two schemas that each cover a separate partition of one namespace. > > > However, trying to decide if two schemas are complementary or duplicative would be a pain. I think the one namespace == one schema resource (in a document) is the best approach. You could still partition your schemas, but you would have to create another schema that imported both BookCatalogue and Reviewer. > > Isn't the proper way of thinking about this that there is only one > schema per namespace and that there are multiple schema documents > describing that namespace? Since schemas and schema documents are all there are, and we schema-validate _an_ instance with _a_ schema, it must be the case that we may have more than one namespace per schema. What I think the useful summary is that in any case where multiple schema documents are used to describe a namespace, a single schema document which <include>s them all should also be provides, so that instances and other schema documents can use a single URI to identify them. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-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/
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 13:35:41 UTC