[dsdl-comment] Re: Incorrect expression in Schematron Schema for Additional Constraints?

Andrew Sales wrote:

  Hi

> The last assertion in Annex B of ISO/IEC FDIS 19757-3
> contains a path which would be invalid against the schema
> for Schematron given in Annex A: a
> pattern[@abstract='true'] cannot contain a param child.
> Suggest omitting the first predicate to produce:

> not(//sch:pattern/sch:param[@name=current()/@name])

  If I understand correctly the problem, the intention of
this rule in the annex B is to check that a variable doesn't
have the same name of one parameter an abstract pattern
defines. But as you told, abstract patterns do not declare
the parameters they define. The only place where we have
such information is from instanciation of those abstract
patterns.

  So I suggest instead:

    not(//sch:pattern[@is-a]/sch:param[@name=current()/@name])

  Because patterns with @is-a are the only one allowed to
have sch:param, that's the same at the end of the day. But
I think that makes the intention clearer.

  Besides that, I really think parameters should be declared
by abstract patterns...

  Regards,

--drkm

      _____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr

--
DSDL comments
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)