asap message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Discussion on state datatype
- From: Keith Swenson <KSwenson@us.fujitsu.com>
- To: "ASAP (E-mail)" <asap@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:07:41 -0800
We have a datatype
definition for "State" to be:
<xsd:simpleType
name="stateType">
<xsd:restriction
base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration
value="open.notrunning" />
<xsd:enumeration
value="open.notrunning.suspended" />
<xsd:enumeration value="open.running" />
<xsd:enumeration value="closed.completed" />
<xsd:enumeration value="closed.abnormalCompleted" />
<xsd:enumeration
value="closed.abnormalCompleted.terminated" />
<xsd:enumeration value="closed.abnormalCompleted.aborted" />
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
The purpose behind
making states as a sequence of dot separate values is that individual
implementation are supposed to be able to make extensions to this set. For
example, a company could make "open.notrunning.beingBackedUp" or some such
state. This 'adds value' to the state. A partner of their may be
able to understand the nuance of beingBackedUp or might not. Never the
less, anyone will understand the beginning part
"open.notrunning".
Can a XML Schema be
extended in this way? How do I write the schema that says: "use those 7
values, and then add to them this new 8th value". Do I need to
define the entire set again, and call it "stateType2". Can I say that
stateType2 is stateType with an added value.
If we can not extend
the state type in this way, then we may need to stay with state type being a
simple string.
-Keith
Keith D Swenson, kswenson@us.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Software
Corporation
1250 E. Arques Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085
(408)
746-6276 mobile: (408) 859-1005
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]