- From: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@frictionless.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:59:38 -0500
- To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "Xmlschema-Dev (E-mail)" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
That's a relief. I'll continue to use these constructs in this way, and I'll hope that the validators will catch up and start doing their jobs. Still, it's a little disconcerting that none of them catches a violation. Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Mark Feblowitz [t] 617.715.7231 Frictionless Commerce Incorporated [f] 617.495.0188 XML Architect [e] mfeblowitz@frictionless.com 400 Technology Square, 9th Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 www.frictionless.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:52 AM To: Mark Feblowitz Cc: Xmlschema-Dev (E-mail) Subject: Re: Using substitution groups as meta-types Hi Mark, > 1. should schema validators reject any "Phrase" specialization that > contains a Verb child or Object child that is not a member of its > respective substitution group? It would make sense, and after going through http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-particle-restrict in detail, I'm fairly sure the answer is yes. The Phrase type is the sequence of a single Verb element followed by a single Object element. Valid restrictions of this sequence are either single element particles or other sequences. If it's an element particle, then it's mapped on to a sequence for the purpose of validation. So now we're comparing the base sequence and the derived sequence. Each of the particles in the derived sequence must map to one of the particles in the base sequence, preserving order and not skipping any of the non-emptiable particles in the base sequence. So the derived sequence must contain one particle that maps on to the Verb element particle and another particle that maps on to the Object element particle. Because they're heads of substitution groups, the Verb and Object element particles are mapped onto a choice element, containing the members of the substitution group of which they are the heads. When comparing a choice to an element, the element is placed in a choice and the choices are compared. When comparing two choices, each of the particles in the derived choice must map on to one of the particles in the base choice. That will only happen if the base choice (i.e. the choice created from the element particle due to it being the head of a substitution group) contains an element particle contained in the derived choice (i.e. the element declared). So the only legal derivations of the Phrase type are those that contain two element particles, the first of which is the Verb element or one of its substitution group memebers, and the second of which is the Object element or one of its substition group members. > 2. should schema validators reject an instance document containing a > specific phrase element that names a Verb child or Object child that > is not a member of its respective substitution group? Again, it would make sense and after going through http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cvc-particle I'm fairly sure the answer is yes. To be valid, the content of the element that has the Phrase type must consist of a sequence of elements that are valid against the sequence defined for the Phrase type (of a single Verb element followed by a single Object element). The first element must be locally valid against the (global) declaration of the Verb element. This can only happen if the name of the element is 'Verb' or if the (global) declaration of the element is validly substitutable for the Verb element's declaration. This only happens if the element's declaration is (eventually) affiliated with the substitution group of which Verb is the head. Similarly for Object. > 3. By using these constructs "at the metalevel", am I using the > substitution group mechanism in a way that is not intended to be > used? I don't think so - it seems like a reasonable use to me. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 12:00:22 UTC