Apologies... I've been away from this for a couple of days and I'm
struggling to absorb it all, but just picking up one point here...
Jane said:
> I'm by no means an XML Schema expert but, one suggestion is
> that you consider using 'anySimpleType' rather than 'string':
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes
>
> At least then users can derive some other useful datatypes.
>
> And just to clarify, the current proposal is to have 3 XML Schemas?
>
> 1. An XML Schema for 'simple DC' - using either 'string' or
> 'anySimpleType' for the element types
Is there not a problem that the current "base" element type in the
simpledc schema isn't a simpleType? i.e. if we allow the use of the
xml:lang attribute (which was part of the initial proposal for "simple
DC", and I don't _think_ has been rejected along the way?), I think that
makes the "base" element type a "complexType" in XML Schema terms, which
introduces the problem pointed out by Roland here
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=dc-architecture&F=
&S=&P=7240
of deriving simpleTypes from that starting point.
Does this mean we need separate "per-DC-element" types, where some
elements have complexTypes permitting xml:lang and others have only
simpleTypes based only on "anySimpleType"?
Pete
|