This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
QT-approved comment. Section 2.1. It is worth noting that the word "value" has different meanings in Schema and in QT. This gives QT some terminology problems: a QT atomic value is a pair comprising an SV and a type, where an SV is a "value" as defined in XML Schema; but QT has no name for the concept, having used "value" for something else. This sometimes leads to circumlocutions such as "a point in the value space". A more distinctive term, such as "datapoint", might be worth considering.
On the telcon. For bug 3221, not only would it be difficult to change in our own specification, there is too much other material out there that already uses the term in the context of schemas. Sorry, but the WG declines. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
Owing to travel, I was absent when this issue on the usage of the term "value" was discussed. Had I been present on the call, I think I would have argued that the premise of the comment may need discussion or clarification. The text of the spec does not make it very explicit (perhaps it should do so), but over time, the XML Schema WG has come to agree that the best way to interpret the XSDL spec is to assume that given any value, one necessarily is also given the identity of its primitive datatype. So that one knows, given a sequence of bits, whether it is a value of type xs:hexBinary or of xs:base64Binary. This seems in many ways analogous to the idea in the QT specs that when given a value, one knows what type it has. The difference is that XSDL assumes one knows the primitive datatype, while in QT one knows the governing type definition (or the active member type definition. But it is true that XSDL regards the identity of the primitive type as just a property of the value, rather than talking about pairs whose one member is the name of a type and whose other is the 'value' qua datapoint within the value space of that type. It would probably be worth while, both in XSDL and in the relevant QT specs, to point to this difference in usage and to point out that the difference in viewpoint is not, in practice, all that great.
QT accept that aligning the terminology in this area is going to be too difficult.