Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

From: Zehler, Peter (
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 09:10:34 EST

  • Next message: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1): "SM> Union construct for 0.95"

    The only reason I know of now for the patterns is to keep the types used in
    the union the same. As I recall HP had some problem with a union of two
    different types. The pattern is defining a QName. (When defining the
    schema I was focused in reducing the number of types used and overlooked
    QName) I have no objection to going with QName wherever we are doing
    extensions federated by a namespace. The elements to be changed are
    MediaNsExtensionPattern, KeywordExtensionPattern and
    StringNsExtensionPattern and all the elements that use them.
    Any objections to making the change?
            Peter Zehler
    Xerox Architecture Center
    Voice: (585) 265-8755
    FAX: (585) 265-8871
    US Mail: Peter Zehler

                    Xerox Corp.
            800 Phillips Rd.
            M/S 128-30E
            Webster NY, 14580-9701
    -----Original Message-----
    From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) []
    Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:16 PM
    To: Peter Zehler [Xerox] (E-mail)
    Subject: FW: PWG Pattern vs. QName

    Hi Pete,
    I got pinged on this internally, and didn't have a good answer. Do we just
    have these patterns declared to avoid doing a union of NMTOKEN & QName? If
    not, these patterns look a lot like they are just restricting NMTOKEN to a
    qualified name.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: JARVIS,DAN (HP-Boise,ex1)
    Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:03 PM
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Subject: PWG Pattern vs. QName

    The following two simple types in the PWG schemas define a pattern that
    appears to be describing a QName:
    * MediaNsExtensionPattern (in MediaWellKnownValues.xsd)

    * KeywordNsExtensionPattern (in PwgWellKnownValues.xsd)
    Is this pattern intended to be a QName? If so, why is a seemingly complex
    pattern being used rather than QName?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 09:11:19 EST