This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
raised on 31 Mar 2005 by Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org): Please allow barename fragments to be used as schema component designator right hand sides. For example #over17 in http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-walkthru-20011218/daml+oil-ex-dt#over17 If they're already allowed, please make it more clear that they are; my reading of 3.1 Schema Component Designator Syntax http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/ is that they're not. We discussed this in March 2004... [[ DC: Most pressing use case is pointing at user-defined datatypes. First design that occurs to me is #sku. Why not? MSM: Multiple top-level symbol spaces. #sku could be type, element, attribute, notation, attribute groups, named model groups... DC: OK, so don't do #sku to do that. Advise users to not have two top-level things named the same. ... ]] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37 There seems to be little or no acknowledgement of the case case of user-defined datatypes in OWL. The only thing I see is: "RDF assertions about types, etc". Please cite this section of the OWL recommendation among your requiremenets... "Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to use user-defined XML Schema datatypes in OWL." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/syntax.html#2.1 And acknowledge this example from the DAML+OIL submission among your use cases: <xsd:simpleType name="over17"> <!-- over17 is an XMLS datatype based on positiveIntege --> <!-- with the added restriction that values must be >= 18 --> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:positiveInteger"> <xsd:minInclusive value="18"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Adult"> <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> <daml:Restriction> <daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#age"/> <daml:hasClass rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil- walkthru-20011218/daml+oil-ex-dt#over17"/ > </daml:Restriction> </daml:intersectionOf> </daml:Class> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-walkthru-20011218/#9 I still can't see why the design chosen in DAML+OIL shouldn't be standardized in the XML Schema Component designators spec, so as I say, please change the design too. There is an extensive discussion history on this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Apr/0006.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Apr/0055.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005May/0000.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005May/att-0028/2005-05- 06minutes.html#item05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2005May/0003.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Jun/0005.html The WG agreed to respond along the lines indicated by 2005Jun/0005.html, clarifying why the "simple barenames" solution did not work, when it was reported that TAG discussions had lead to a belief that the request was not for a reference to schema types, but for the abstract notion of a type in a namespace. There were many responses to this, including: * the SCD draft therefore had no relevance to this question, and we should respond accordingly * the notion of a schema type unanchored to a schema was contradictory, and the examples adduced in the initial comment do not support the view that an unanchored notion of type is in play * using a different syntax to refer to the abstract notion of type and a specific type component in a schema would be unhelpful and confusing in practice * using the same syntax to refer to the abstract notion of type and a specific type component in a schema would be unhelpful and confusing in practice * using a URI composed from a namespace URI and a schema component path to a type is no different and no worse than using a namespace URI in the first place: if it dereferences to a specific component (or a specific schema) is not germane to its use as an abstract identifier * and various other positions
Additional discussion let to confusion over what requirement really was, and whether the SCD draft was relevant. The WG decided that: (1) An example will be added showing the use of a namespace URI as the LHS (2) Reply on the space of choices offers: xml:id on elements in schema, or NS#type::myType
See also bug 3046, the original requirement driving the design.