[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-part2-1.0-20041126.doc uploaded
But the difference is that there is a good reason to list
mailing address in the traditional form: for once, this is what people are used
to and for another thing this is what the post office will process (if you use
another format your mail might arrive but might not or might be
delayed).
I don't think any of these apply here. Which one is
"better"? The Role before the ResourceId or after the ResourceId? I don't see
any reason to prefer one over the other. So why bother? What's the
problem?
William
From: Sedukhin, Igor S
[mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 3:36 PM To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-part2-1.0-20041126.doc uploaded By now I wonder why didn't we use nillable elements. May be
optionality is not what was intended here... I'm experimenting with MOWS schema
to see how that works out...
My only concern is XML arrangement with no semantic
meaning, just to satisfy the schema validity. If I had to represent my address
as NY, Igor, 12345, 1 Street, Sedukhin, Town. I would wonder why is it the
case...
-- Igor
Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com) From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:45 PM To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-part2-1.0-20041126.doc uploaded Because as I think Zhilli pointed out earlier, not moving
role to 3rd place would violate the unique particle attribution rule, since it
would map this case:
"One is a wildcard and the other an element declaration,
and the {target namespace} of any member of its ·substitution group· is ·valid·
with respect to the {namespace constraint} of the wildcard."
I saw your email and it's great that .Net and your Java
library accept to handle it but it is still an invalid schema and I don't see
why we should ship an invalid schema when we can make it valid by a simple
change that doesn't affect anything negatively (AFAIK, please let me know if
this change causes a real problem).
Regards,
William
From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 8:02 AM To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-part2-1.0-20041126.doc uploaded [- moved "role" to 3rd element in relationship
type]
Why did you have to do it? I ran the previous form of this through .NET and
Java ser/deser skeleton generators and it was just fine... I sent the .NET
version in my e-mail last week.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]