This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
4 Semantics [1] para 2 "It specifies how full-text expression can be nested" s/expression/expressions/ [2] XQueryFullTextInteraction.jpg The diagram attempts to represent both the static (syntactic) and dynamic interactions between the Full-Text extensions and the base XQuery/XPath, and I don't think it succeeds. With respect to the boxes, each arrow appears to mean roughly "can be nested within", but the accompanying text is at odds with this interpretation. E.g., At (1), the text "Evaluate to a Sequence of Items" appears to be a label for the arrow, suggesting that the process of evaluation begins and ends with an XQuery/XPath expression, which is certainly not what you want to convey. [3] box labelled "FTSelection" Note that an FTContainsExpr is not an FTSelection, so the label is inadequate. Maybe change it to "Full-Text expression" (which actually complements the other box better). [4] "tokenized text of atomic values" s/of/or/, I think you mean. [5] graphic used for arrows The use of "3D" arrows makes me imagine that the diagram is executing some kind of yaw-pitch maneuver. [6] bullets 2 + 3 "expressions can be nested inside FTSelections by evaluating them to a sequence of items" "the composability of FTSelections ... is achieved by evaluating the FTSelections to AllMatches." [6a] I don't think it's correct to say that nesting/composability is achieved by evaluating something. Rather it's achieved by designing the language to be closed with respect to a data model (or in this case, something more complicated involving two data models). Please drop the "achieved by evaluating" connector. [6b] E.g.: Arrow 2 shows how XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 expressions can be nested inside FTSelections. When evaluated, an XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 expression yields an XDM instance (sequence of items). If the expression is nested ... [6c] For the Arrow 3 blurb, you could just delete: "The composability is achieved by evaluating the FTSelections to AllMatches." [7] "Arrow 4 shows how the result of the evaluation of XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text 1.0 and scoring expressions are integrated into the XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 model." Consitency dictates that it actually represents how Full-Text expressions (specifically, FTContainsExpr) can be nested inside XQuery/XPath expressions.
WRT comment #1: classified as editorial and done. WRT comment #4: classified as editorial, but now seems moot.
(In reply to comment #1) > WRT comment #4: classified as editorial, but now seems moot. Why moot?
Rereading my point [6], I'm pretty sure I intended the text under [6b] to be part of [6a] rather than a separate sub-point. So just mentally delete the header "[6b]". Sorry for the mixup.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > WRT comment #4: classified as editorial, but now seems moot. > > Why moot? > I couldn't find the offending text anywhere in the source control version. Maybe I'm just missing it: can you give me an exact para?
The phrase "tokenized text of atomic values" appears at arrow #2 in the diagram (which is why it doesn't show up when you search the source text).
#6 resolved along lines proposed.
The diagram representing the interaction of XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Full-Text with the XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 languages has been modified, as has the text that follows it. The positions of the arrows has been changed to minimize the impression that there is a meaningful "counter-clockwise" flow of some sort being illustrated, and the subsequent text has been changed to refer to "steps" instead of "arrows". That subsequent text has been altered to more accurately capture the intent of the list, and the text within the right-hand box has been changed to parallel that within the right-hand box. This resolves items [2], [3], [5], and [7]. The editorial change suggested in item [4] has also been handled. We believe that this completely resolves this bug, so we are marking it RESOLVED and FIXED. If you agree, then please mark it CLOSED.
As stated in the FTTF meeting on 2007-10-12.... re [2]: I don't think my objection has been resolved, but I'll live with it. re the changes to the subsequent bullets: Generally an improvement, except for the change to refer to "steps" instead of "arrows". Calling them "steps" suggests "Do these four things in this order and then you're done", which is not what you want to convey. Going back to calling them "arrows" would be fine.