2659 2006-01-05 19:51:18 +0000 lc-2: simple barenames for schema component designators 2009-02-06 17:43:00 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema SCDS: XML Schema Component Designators unspecified PC Windows 2000 RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 holstege w3c-xml-schema-wg www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7648 0 holstege 2006-01-05 19:51:18 +0000 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 11970 1 holstege 2006-09-22 17:09:37 +0000 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 11971 2 holstege 2006-09-22 17:11:44 +0000 See also bug 3046, the original requirement driving the design.