|
We need a tie-breaker.
>>> "Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 01/15/08 2:46 PM >>>
That's what I've been trying to say. I believe I disagree. If CP implementors are supposed to create OWL based on HOWL then the types will not be the XML schema built-in types, correct? This is one of the places I've been expecting Paul to step in. Anyway, what I wrote earlier, was that I assumed that we'd return our OWL-defined types which eventually would resolve to XML schema built-in types.
Tom
>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 01/15/08 2:31 PM >>>
I'm re- threading this question. It affects a number of assumptions CP implementors and consumers make. Does anyone disagree with my understanding below? The APIs I'm referring to are:
ITypedValue.getDataType() and IAttributeSimpleValueModel.getType() (the former is simply a shortcut for the latter).
Jim
>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 01/11/08 6:36 PM >>>
So, based on my perhaps flawed understanding of what types get reported to the caller, the IdAS javadoc states that simple value types are always one of the XML schema built- in simple datatypes (excluding the ur- type anySimpleType, but including its subtypes listed in http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema- 2). ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema- 2). ) You can see a table of these in Section 3 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema- 2/#built- in- datatypes ).
If I'm mistaken and IdAS simple value types are supposed to be something else, we need to address that.
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
|
