On Fri, 16 May 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>>Tim, regarding lists:
>>
>>the idea is that if there is an element of name Name and cardinality 1..n
>>in the spreadsheet it is safe to enclose it in a list of name NameList.
>>However, elements of cardinality 0..n should not, because you would then
>>end up with possibly empty Lists, which is not what anybody wants.
Agree, dont wanna have a lot of empty baggages carried around.
>>We
>>did look at the spreadsheet, and we did verify that only those that
>>have cardinality of 1..n are the ones one would definitely say are
>>candidates for list items.
But what about doc instances of types (present or future ones)
with cardinality permitting 0..n, but whose instances have
non-zero (say, 10) repetitions? Such occurences will appear
the same as instances of types with cardinality permitting 1..n
with 10 repetitions. We'd then have a situation where one
group of 10 repetitions is contained, while another group of
10 repetitions isn't contained in the instance document.
Or could the container for cardinality 0..n be itself of
cardinality 0..1 (0 if instance content is 0 cardinality,
1 otherwise) instead of 1..1 (always has) or 0..0 (never has)?
>>The lists themselves should be of cardinality 1..1, otherwise you may
>>end up with no container to put the list items in. Or you end up with
>>a really ambiguous schema where you can either have List items
>>scattered by themselves OR a container with the List items. Ugh.
Agree, too.
Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/