[tdwg-tapir] common operation base type
m.doering at BGBM.org
Thu Nov 17 16:38:52 CET 2005
I agree. There was no particular reason for the complex types inheritance.
I changed the schema to the attribute group approach - which actually reads much more nicely!
Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Steven Perry
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. November 2005 14:33
An: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] common operation base type
I think this is a good idea. In instance documents, would these attributes then be on the ping, capabilities, metadata, inventory and search request elements? This is where they seem to belong.
However, inventory and search are already typed (to restrict the elements that can occur within them). If you agree that the top level request elements (ping, capabilities, etc.) are the place for these new attributes, then can I suggest using an attributeGroup to define them (perhaps called requestParameters) instead of a complex type. This way we avoid the messy complex type extension mechanism (which would require that inventoryParameters and searchParameters extend this new request parameters complex type).
My brain is already back in the parallel RDF universe, so this may be a foolish idea. If you've got a better solution in mind or see a problem with this approach, let me know. Here's a link to an article on this topic http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/29/derivation.html
Döring, Markus wrote:
>this morning I was thinking whether we should create a common operation base type, that would have some attributes resembling the global GET parameters:
>This way we dont have to put those parameters into the header where they are not really belonging.
>Any objections to modify the protocol this way?
>tdwg-tapir mailing list
>tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag