ISSUE-95

Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction

No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Boris Motik

Opened on:

2008-01-20

Description:

Hello,

I believe that we have a slight problem with the DatatypeRestriction.

1. Problem
----------

Currently, the DatatypeRestriction construct takes one dataRange and several facet-value pairs. Note two important points here:

- The data range can be complex.
- There are no compatibility restrictions between the data range and the facets.

The first point makes it possible to write DatatypeRestriction( DataComplementOf(xsd:nonnegativeInteger) fractionDigits "2"^^xsd:integer). It is unclear how to interpret this datatype. The complement of xsd:nonnegativeInteger contains all data values that are not nonnegative integers, which includes, say, real numbers, but also includes all strings. It is unclear what restricting such a datatype to 2 precision digits means. Originally, a dataRange was used because this allowed one to specify, say, minInclusice and maxIncludive via nesting; with mutliple facets per DatatypeRestriction this is not necessary any more.


The second point makes it possible to write DatatypeRestriction(xsd:string fractionDigits "2"^^xsd:integer). Again, it is unclear whether this is a syntax error or, if not, how to interpret this datatype.

2. Possible solution
--------------------

A possible solution would be to change the definition of DatatypeRestriction in the following way:

- Rather than taking a dataRange as an argument, we should make DatatypeRestriction take a Datatype as an argument.
- We should specify compatibility between different datatypes and factes. For example, we would say that fractionDigits could be applied only to the xsd:float datatype.

This solution seems to be in line with the XML Schema way of handling things: if I am not mistaken, in XML Schema one cannot apply an arbitrary facet to an arbitrary datatype.

Regards,

	Boris

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-84 on Boris Motik to Change the spec to add a table with facet-datatype compatibility - due 2008-02-13, closed

Related emails:

1. Agenda for TC 2008-03-05 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-03-04)
2. RE: A summary of the proposed resolution of ISSUE-95 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-03-04)
3. A summary of the proposed resolution of ISSUE-95 (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-03-04)
4. Re: timed IRC log (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-02-28)
5. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-28)
6. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-27)
7. Re: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-02-27)
8. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-27)
9. ISSUE-95: Proposal for recursive DatatypeRestrictionS [WAS: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008] (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-26)
10. Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008 (from ewallace@cme.nist.gov on 2008-02-26)
11. Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008 (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-26)
12. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-20)
13. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-13)
14. RE: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-10)
15. Re: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
16. Re: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from msmith@clarkparsia.com on 2008-01-22)
17. Re: ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-01-21)
18. ISSUE-95 (Datatype-facet compatibility in DatatypeRestriction): No compatibility restrictions between the datatype being restricted and the facets in the DatatypeRestriction construct (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-01-20)

Related notes:

Display change log