Re: [obix] Resolution procedure + schema issue

[William Cox <wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>]

One more thing.

"contract" was plural per discussion (and I missed last week).

"contractList" appears to be a space-separated list of anyURI; is it really whitespace-separated?

Line 1018 says "It is a string with special structure regarding the space-separated group of URIs." I would suggest "It is a set of space-separated URIs with the components being of XML Schema type xs:anyURI."

But that seems really strange. Why not have an actual list of anyURI that normal parsers and object models can handle instead of a parse a string?  Per line 832 it's an obix::list. Would it make sense for contracts (note the "S") to be such a list instead of a must-be-separately-parsed string?

Thanks!

bill
--

William Cox 

Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

+1 862 485 3696 mobile

On 11/3/14 6:27 PM, William Cox wrote:

All --

I've finished my Jira items; several are now assigned to Craig for minor editorial fixes.

In my Jira review, I noticed the changes around contract (still in the WD38 schema at lines 41-43) as

<xs:simpleType name="contract">
        <xs:list itemType="xs:anyURI"/>
    </xs:simpleType>

The text related to "ContractList" (line 1020-1027 in WD38) is troublesome - but I could be convinced it's acceptable.

Note that "contract" is in the schema and is not used.

I'm thinking that since ContractList is really a conformed string that it would be best to have it as a simpleType with constraints, so

<xs:documentation>Names the Contracts the Object implements. The value must conform to the rules for the contractList as described the specification.</xs:documentation>

would more appropriately be in the description a new simpleType  so the constrained string is described in one place :

<xs:simpleType name="contractList">
        <xs:list itemType="xs:stringI"/>
    </xs:simpleType>

Would this break anything? It jars that "contract" would mean "contractList" by the normative comments...Removing an unused type definition is IMO non-substantive so we could remove it later.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

bill

On 11/2/14 11:47 AM, Considine, Toby wrote:

Please Resolve tickets rather than closing them.

 

In the world of standards, closing first says “We blew off your comment”

 

Thanks

 

tc