[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Optionality, Collectors, and validity

• From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:45:52 +0000

You don't seem to have given us full information. Where is the element 
declaration for the "parent" element? Why is "parentType" abstract?

What we can say is that the parent element instance shown will not 
validate as an instance of parentType, because the "components" child 
element is mandatory.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

On 26/03/2011 20:11, Toby Considine wrote:
> I am working on some schemas that rely on other schemas, and t we are
> arguing about the validity of artifacts produced. In particular, in the
> upstream schema, there are collections of things that are optionally
> attached to parents. Say we have the following:
>
> <xs:complexType name="BaseComponentType" abstract="true">
>    <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:element name="components" type="ArrayOfComponents"/>
>      </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
>    <xs:element name="baseComponent" type="BaseComponentType"/>
>    <xs:complexType name="ArrayOfComponents">
>      <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:element ref="baseComponent" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>      </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
>
> BaseComponent is an abstract type with many derivative types. With 3 4
> dreivitave components, you might have an instance artifact like:
>
> <components>
>    <foo />
>    <fie />
>    <fee />
>    <fum />
> <components>
>
> If there are no components, you might have
> <components />
>
> In the larger message, you might have a schema that specifies
> <xs:complexType name="parentType" abstract="true">
>    <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:element ref="shoeSize" type="shoeSizeType"/>
>        <xs:element ref="favoriteFood" type=" favoriteFoodType "/>
>        <xs:element ref="components" type="ArrayOfComponents"/>
>      </xs:sequence>
>    </xs:complexType>
>
>
> Clearly
> <parent>
>    <shoeSize>12</shoeSize>
>    <favoriteFood>nachos</favoriteFood>
>    <components />
> </parent>
>
> is legal. Is
>
> Clearly
> <parent>
>    <shoeSize>12</shoeSize>
>    <favoriteFood>nachos</favoriteFood>
> </parent>
>
> Also legal? Different development tools prefer one or the other result, but
> some flag the second as ill-formed. Is it legal to omit an empty sequence if
> the members of the sequence are all not required?
>
> Thanks
>
> tc
>
>
>
> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
> depends upon his not understanding it” -- Upton Sinclair.
>
> Toby Considine
> TC9, Inc
> TC Chair: oBIX&  WS-Calendar
> TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop
> U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee
>
>
> Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
> Phone: (919)619-2104
> http://www.tcnine.com/
> blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Optionality, Collectors, and validity
    • From: "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Optionality, Collectors, and validity
    • From: "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>