2832 2006-02-11 00:57:56 +0000 RQ-159 Key fields matching urtype (anyKey) 2007-05-01 23:30:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Other All CLOSED LATER important, hard, idc cluster resolved P4 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq sandygao www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 8197 0 cmsmcq 2006-02-11 00:57:56 +0000 This issue was originally reported by Neil Graham. This was R-172 (http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments.html#pfiurTypeIdConstr). Consider the schema: <xsd:schema xmlns="http://schematests.com" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="http://tests.com"> <xsd:element name="root"> <xsd:complexType> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="name" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> <xsd:key name="nameKey"> <xsd:selector xpath="./name"/> <xsd:field xpath="."/> </xsd:key> </xsd:element> </xsd:schema> Since no type is declared for the local "name" element, by the properties tableaus in [1], it must have the ur-type. Consider the instance document <my:root xmlns:my="http://tests.com" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://tests.com idAnytype.xsd"> <name>Jack Daniels<name> <name>Johnny Walker<name> <name>Sam Adams<name> <my:root> From the 3rd point of [2]: 3 For each node in the target node set all of the {fields}, with that node as the context node, evaluate to either an empty node-set or a node-set with exactly one member, which must have a simple type. [3] tells us that the ur-type can behave as a simpleType "according to context": [Definition:] A distinguished ur-type definition is present in each XML Schema, serving as the root of the type definition hierarchy for that schema. The ur-type definition, whose name is anyType, has the unique characteristic that it can function as a complex or a simple type definition, according to context." This raises two questions: * Is it valid for a <field> to match an element with the ur-type definition under any circumstances? * If such a match may sometimes be valid (presumably when the element only contains textual content): - If the element contains text, in which value space should the schema-normalized value of the field be considered to lie? This will be significant in the case of keyref matches, especially in light of the recent discussions concerning the incomparability of values from disjoint value spaces. - I presume that an error should be raised if the instance of the ur-typed element actually contains element content? Or should the <field> match simply fail? [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#declare-element [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/#section-Identity-constraint-Definition-Validation-Rules (in version of May 2001; or http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#d0e13819 in Second Edition [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-urType See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JulSep/0085.html Henry's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002JulSep/0089.html Discussed at the 2003-10-17 telecon. RESOLVED: (a) to class R-172 as clarification with erratum, and instruct the editor to draft an erratum which restricts fields to matching types which have LV mappings (informally, 'concrete' simple types), and (b) make a note to come back to this in 1.1, after solving RQ-024 and RQ-141 (the issue about abstract simple types). The underlying issue applies to both Structures and Datatypes. This Bugzilla entry is for Structures. 12840 1 sandygao 2006-11-06 02:12:31 +0000 *** Bug 2170 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 14565 2 cmsmcq 2007-03-28 19:01:33 +0000 Note that a 1.0 analogue of this issue is in bug 2169. 14567 3 noah_mendelsohn 2007-03-28 19:40:14 +0000 This issue was discussed at the Schema F2F meeting in Cambridge on 28 March 2007. We did not reach consensus on making any changes to the Recommendation for Schema 1.1. The issue is being closed with status LATER. 14569 4 noah_mendelsohn 2007-03-28 19:41:04 +0000 This issue was discussed at the Schema F2F meeting in Cambridge on 28 March 2007. We did not reach consensus on making any changes to the Recommendation for Schema 1.1. The issue is being closed with status LATER. 14961 5 cmsmcq 2007-05-01 23:30:38 +0000 The originator of the comment has indicated that he is content with the disposition of this issue for XML Schema 1.1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2007AprJun/0024.html Accordingly, I am marking it CLOSED.