Before I left Seoul, Stephen showed me a simple solution that was structurally along the lines of what I imagined for the range value element type. RANGE-VALUE COMPLEX TYPE PSUEDO-SCHEMA ---------------------------------------- It is very straightforward in terms of writing XSD. With some changes I recommend, it would look like this as a sequence: <...> <lowerBound>xsd:integer</lowerBound> ? <upperBound>xsd:integer</upperBound> ? <exact>xsd:integer</exact> * <range> <lowerBound>xsd:integer</lowerBound> <upperBound>xsd:integer</upperBound> </range> * </...> I have changed the names of the pieces from what I think Stephen showed me, in order to try to make their meaning as obvious as possible. The whole element is more or less a disjunction of its expression parts, but please note below the special treatment of the optional semi-space constraints (the top-level lower/upper bounds)... they are treated identically to a regular range element if both are specified and only act as true semi-spaces when one is omitted. However, all other exact and range expressions are treated independentally (as a true disjunction). The alternatives to this that I came up with all seemed unsatisfactory: 1) make it a complete disjunction, meaning any value over the lower bound OR under the upper bound is in range. 2) other hybrid conjunctions, meaning multiple bounds, ranges, and/or exact expressions have to match. INTEGER OR FLOATING-POINT REPRESENTATION ----------------------------------------- We had discussed using xsd:integer and this implies that any use of this type must just define the "base" units that are being counted. The only problem in our base terms is (cpu-)time, where I wonder if we are better off using a floating-point type to allow the base units to be seconds and still allow fractional second specification. Choosing some specoific fractional second as the base unit seems unappealing to me. If we provide a floating point/fractional version, I think there needs to be an optional attribute on the exact element to specify a precision or epsilon value for equality tests, e.g. <exact jsdl:precision="0.001">3.1415927...</exact> could match anything in the range (3.1405927..., 3.1425927...). Or, the consumer could treat it as undefined and do something appropriate if a precision is specified which it cannot support. Perhaps a simpler solution is to stick with arbitrary length integers and add an optional divisor attribute that defaults to 1: <exact jsdl:divisor="100000">314159</exact> which would be exactly 3.14159 in decimal fractions? Of course, a different divisor like "1024" could be used for binary fractions. I am not a numerical analyst so I would prefer we bounce any such proposal off of several before adopting it. SEMANTICS ------------------------------------------ The matching semantics would be as follows for an element of this type: let boolean "L" and "U" be whether lower/upper bound values are specified; let integer "l" and "u" be lower/upper bound values respectively let E be { e | e is specified in an exact element } let R be { <l,u> | <l,u> is specified in a range element } in_range(x) = (!L || l <= x) && (!U || x <= u) || there exists e in E such that x = e || there exists <l,u> in R such that l <= x <= u. INCLUSIVE VERSUS EXCLUSIVE RANGES ----------------------------------------- Also, I suggest that we place an optional attribute in the boundary elements: jsdl:exclusiveBound=xsd:boolean with default false, meaning that by default the range of acceptable values includes the boundary value in the element body. Setting it to true would mean that the boundary value is not part of the range. This supports any meaning captured before in the operator enumeration, I think. A minor note is that the elements have to appear in the sequence order, which I argue is a good thing for machine-machine communication as the parse tree will yield three monomorphic arrays of values with clear meanings, rather than one polymorphic array that the consumer has to traverse. karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com