Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@sun.com>]

I'd rather not go there at this time. IOW: we finally reached a decision
about containers that is agreeable to all. Let's leave it
there. It's not perfect, but it's a decision, and we can all live
with it, and we can change it in the future if needed (perhaps along
your line of thought) in a not very-disturbingly-backward-incompatible
manner.


Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> 
> 
>>>...
>>>yes, but...
>>>
>>>>Or could the container for cardinality 0..n be itself of
>>>>cardinality 0..1 (0 if instance content is 0 cardinality,
>>>>1 otherwise) instead of 1..1 (always has) or 0..0 (never has)?
>>>
>>>Hm, must think about this. Think, think, think...Well, I think
>>>it's a good idea, but not enforceable. I don't think there is
>>>any way to say, in XSD, that an instance is valid if and only
>>>if a given kind of list container does not appear in the instance
>>>when what it could contain does not appear, and does appear
>>>otherwise...IOW, there's no way to specify that it's optional
>>>under some circumstances but mandatory under others... Better let
>>>the user realize that having a container around order items makes
>>>sense while having one around possible street lines does not...
> 
> 
> (... as if the spirit never dies...)
> 
> How feasible is it to use <xsd:choice> plus divide-and-conquer
> by having those cardinalities with 0..n  divided into 2 choices
> of 0 + 1..n ?   If the <xsd:choice> is a run-time decision left
> to the UBL processor, it might just be possible though I stand
> corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Chin Chee-Kai
> SoftML
> Tel: +65-6820-2979
> Fax: +65-6743-7875
> Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
> http://SoftML.Net/
> 
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair