[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Problem about imported schema type when processing XQuery
- From: "he harrison" <harrison076@g...>
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:24:01 +0800
Ok, let me make it more concise. It's true that the ISSD is a static context, while
participating ISSD, in my understanding, include following schema definitions:
1 the module itself imported schema definitions
2 XML document imported schema definitions
3 those schema definitions imported in imported modules, and used to describe variable
values and function arguments and return values(typically by subtype substitution). In other word, those schema definitions that only used to describe imported module's local variables does not belong to importing module's participating ISSD because they have nothing to do
with importing module.
What's more, even if we could forgot the scenario that two types in two files have identical QName,
we still could not avoid the "redefine" mechanism in schema, which did allow two types
have identical name while have different different definitions. Let's take my original case as
an example, if we change schema_c.xsd to:
<xs:minInclusive value = "51"/>
<xs:maxInclusive value = "100"/>
Then I think the case should be all right, isn't it? So, what's the result?
I think the type "simple:myType" will have different meaning in a.xq
and c.xq, processor should treat them correctly and should not complain, right?
I think if we consider participating ISSD is a dynamic concept, such scenario will be quite
natural to handle.
2008/1/3, Michael Kay <
Sorry, I don't see how you can read the spec that way. ISSD
is defined "as the
in-scope schema definitions
of a module", and "in-scope schema
definitions" is clearly defined in 2.1.1 as part of the static context.
This rule is clearly a static rule.
You say "I think participating ISSD is not a static concept, but a dynamic
one", but you don't really explain why you think
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and you're not talking
about what the spec says, but about what you think it should say? That's a
different discussion, of course.
From: he harrison
Sent: 03 January 2008
To: Michael Kay
Subject: Re: Problem about imported
schema type when processing XQuery module import
That still seems obscure....how about my understanding:
understanding is, for the most part, agree with yours explaination, the
is about "participating ISSD", I think participating
ISSD is not a static concept,
but a dynamic one, it should not include all schema definitions
in imported module,
but only those schema definitions that passed to
importing module along with variables
or function return values. Those
schema definitions in imported modules which are not
used by importing
modules do not belong to participating ISSD.
participating ISSD also include currently active XML document
imported schema definitions, and module itself imported schema
As to my previous example, module a.xq's imported
schema schema_a.xsd is
module c.xq's participating ISSD(because the
type are passed by sub typing),
schema_c.xsd also belongs to c.xq's
participating ISSD, while they both contain
same definition for
"myType", therefore an dynamic error should be raised.
But if we change
module namespace ma="http://www.w3.org/TestModules/moduleA";
schema namespace simple="http://www.w3.org/XQueryTest/simple"
declare function ma:funcA()
cast as simple:myType) cast as xs:int
then no error should be
raised even a.xq and c.xq still have different ISSD that contain
definition for "myType", because "myType" imported in a.xq will not be
passed to module c.xq therefore will not cause confusion.
this understanding is in consistant with both "2.2.5 Consistency
and the two spec. statements I've mentioned.
2008/1/3, Michael Kay <mike@s...>:
Since it does not import in-scope
schema definitions from the imported modules, the importing
should not see what schema definitions are there in the imported
could not see each other, then how could they decide
whether their ISSD is "equivalent"?
and it seems also meaningless to
compare their ISSD because they will not disturb each
This may be why the spec doesn't require an implementation to check
that the two ISSDs are compatible, but merely says that the results are
unpredictable if they are
If a module could see the
imported module's schema definition, then why spec. still
importing module explicitly import necessary schema definition, since
will surely be imported from other module's
the decision that all imported schema definitions would be available
in all modules. However, that makes it harder to do separate
compilation of modules. I think the rule in XQuery
that each module must import all the schema definitions that it
needs is there in the belief that this will make separate compilation of
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format
Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats,
enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.
Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website.
they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please