Re: [obix] Resolution procedure + schema issue

One more thing.

      

      "contract" was plural per discussion (and I missed last week).

      

      "contractList" appears to be a space-separated list of anyURI; is
      it really whitespace-separated? 

      

      Line 1018 says "It is a string with special structure regarding
      the space-separated group of URIs." I would suggest "It is a set
      of space-separated URIs with the components being of XML Schema
      type xs:anyURI."

      

      But that seems really strange. Why not have an actual list of
      anyURI that normal parsers and object models can handle instead of
      a parse a string?  Per line 832 it's an obix::list. Would it make
      sense for contracts (note the "S") to be such a list instead of a
      must-be-separately-parsed string?

      

      Thanks!

      

      bill

      --

      

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
William Cox 

        
Email:  

        
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

        
+1 862 485 3696 mobile

        

        

      

      On 11/3/14 6:27 PM, William Cox wrote:

    

    
      
      All --

      

      I've finished my Jira items; several are now assigned to Craig for
      minor editorial fixes.

      

      In my Jira review, I noticed the changes around contract (still in
      the WD38 schema at lines 41-43) as

      

      <xs:simpleType name="contract">

                <xs:list itemType="xs:anyURI"/>

            </xs:simpleType>
      

      The text related to "ContractList" (line 1020-1027 in WD38) is
      troublesome - but I could be convinced it's acceptable.

      

      Note that "contract" is in the schema and is not used.

      

      I'm thinking that since ContractList is really a conformed string
      that it would be best to have it as a simpleType with constraints,
      so

      <xs:documentation>Names the
        Contracts the Object implements. The value must conform to the
        rules for the contractList as described the
        specification.</xs:documentation>
      would more appropriately be in the description a new simpleType 
      so the constrained string is described in one place :

      <xs:simpleType name="contractList">

                <xs:list itemType="xs:stringI"/>

            </xs:simpleType>
      

      Would this break anything? It jars that "contract" would mean
      "contractList" by the normative comments...Removing an unused type
      definition is IMO non-substantive so we could remove it later.

      

      Thoughts?

      

      Thanks!

      

      bill

      

      

      
On 11/2/14 11:47 AM, Considine, Toby
        wrote:

      

      
        
        
        
        
        

          
Please Resolve tickets rather than
            closing them.

          
 

          
In the world of standards, closing first
            says “We blew off your comment”

          
 

          
Thanks

          
 

          
tc