[OASIS Issue Tracker] (LEGALRULEML-8) Ambiguity of syntax when an edge is allowed to be either leaf or not skipped

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/LEGALRULEML-8?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=48762#comment-48762 ] 

Tara Athan commented on LEGALRULEML-8:
--------------------------------------

Note that the <Statements> element is allowed inside <inScope> so that it is possible to define a new Statement collection at that point. If that capability is not significant (we can always have several inScope edges, or a new Statement collection could be defined outside of the Context), then we could make <inScope> a "leaf-only" edge, which solves the problem for that case.

But I don't think this solution is applicable to all cases where it currently arises.
Here is the list of non-skippable edges that have a leaf form:
appliesAlternatives
appliesAssociations
appliesAssociation
appliesAuthority
appliesJursidiction
appliesPenalty
appliesStrength
appliesTemporalCharacteristics
appliesTemporalCharacteristic
fromLegalSources (may be deleted)
hasComment
hasParaphrase

> Ambiguity of syntax when an edge is allowed to be either leaf or not skipped
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGALRULEML-8
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/LEGALRULEML-8
>             Project: OASIS LegalRuleML TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Relax NG-modules
>            Reporter: Tara Athan
>
> Currently there are certain edges that are considered to be required (not skippable) but also may occur as leaf edges. E.g. "inScope" could occur as
> <inScope keyref="#stmts1"/>
> or
> <inScope>
>   <Statements keyref="#stmts2"/>
> </inScope>
> Due to the limitations of XSD, a schema that allows both of these patterns must also allow their combination
> <inScope keyref="#stmts1>
>   <Statements keyref="#stmts2"/>
> </inScope>
> and then it is ambiguous what the scope actually is.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)