ISSUE-1

Scope of Structures to be Addressed

State:
CLOSED
Product:
All
Raised by:
Paul Downey
Opened on:
2005-12-13
Description:
* Title: 		Document's scope
* Description:	see below
* Target:		"Roadmap"?
* Proposal:		to be discussed

In the given draft a section like a "document's scope" would make sense
for me with an overview as to what is:

(1) a list of common data structures which are covered in there
Currently: 
- enumeration
- collection (for object, class, structure or record)
Q: would it be worth to further elaborate/distinct these types,
especially what concerns a "classic" data type like structure/record vs
object/class?
- vector (for array, list)
	- ordered
	- access by index
- maps (for hash table, dictionary, associative array, associative
memory, indexed table, keyed data)
	- unordered
	- access by key

(2) a list of common structures which are not covered and why not and
what to do with them
- pointers (data reference, object reference)
- semantical aspects
	- complications with binary data (?)
	- customizing data, etc

(3) what to do with "uncommon" data structures that I have in my
programming language
- for example in SAP ABAP language there are some specific data
constructs, e.g. field-symbol which represents a specific declaration
(as opposed to a type definition) being assigned upon another data.

(4) what to do if my programming language does not [fully] support the
mentioned data structure?
Related emails:
  1. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 20 December 2005 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2005-12-19)
  2. Draft Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 20 December 2005 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2005-12-20)
  3. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 10 Jan 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-01-09)
  4. Re: Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 10 Jan 2006 (from paul@wso2.com on 2006-01-10)
  5. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 10 January 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-01-10)
  6. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding F2F 27-28 February 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-02-22)
  7. Revised Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding F2F 27-28 February 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-02-27)
  8. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding F2F 27-28 Feb 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-03-12)
  9. ISSUE-28: what to do if the programming language does not fully support a data structure (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-03-27)
  10. ISSUE-29: what to do with what to do with \\'uncommon\\' data structures in programming languages (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-03-27)
  11. ISSUE-30: a more distinct list of datatypes covered (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-03-27)
  12. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 28 March 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-03-28)
  13. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 28 March 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-03-28)
  14. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 4 April 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-01)
  15. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 18 April 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-15)
  16. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding call 18 April 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-18)
  17. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 25 April 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-04-23)
  18. ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document? (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-06-01)
  19. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 10 October 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-10-10)
  20. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 17 October 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-10-18)

Related notes:

2006-02-27: Issue closed with the following resolution: This issue has been split in separate issues. * an issue about the enumeration of types * the "uncommon" data structures part of a specific programming language * what to do if the programming language does not fully support a data structure