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 (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 09:10:34 EST

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

    Bob,
     
    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?
     
    Pete
     
            Peter Zehler
    XEROX
    Xerox Architecture Center
    Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
    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) [mailto:bobt@hp.com]
    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.
     
    thanks,
     
    bt
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: JARVIS,DAN (HP-Boise,ex1)
    Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:03 PM
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: SCHMELING,GARTH (HP-Boise,ex1); HELMS,JANINE (HP-Boise,ex1); FOSTER,WARD
    (HP-Boise,ex1)
    Subject: PWG Pattern vs. QName

    Bob-
     
    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?
     
    -Dan



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