Dear Noah,

Many thanks for this. It is exactly what I want. I would like to store =
the
code ('1') but also keep track of what the code means ('male'). 

I am using ASP.NET/C#. Hence, I could later replace the 'coding' with =
the
'meaning' if the user prefers this.

Thanks again,

Chris  

PS: I didn't really understand why you use <bob></bob> instead of
<gender></gender> ... later I would like to use this simple type in =
complex
types with complex content model.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... =
[mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...]
> On Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@u...
> Sent: 04 September 2006 20:49
> To: Christian Setzkorn
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w...
> Subject: Re: XML schema for ordinal/nominal variables
> 
> 
> I think the first question is, what do you want your XML instances to =
look
> like.  The example type you've given:
> 
> <xs:element name = "gender" >
>                  <xs:simpleType>
>                                  <xs:restriction base = "xs:string" =
>
>                                                  <xs:pattern value "0
> female | 1 male" />
>                                  </xs:restriction>
>                  </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:element>
> 
> will validate elements like:
> 
> <bob>1 male<bob>
> <mary>0 female</mary>
> 
> in which both the ordinal code and its mapped value appear in the =
instance
> (though I think you're missing some quotes on the strings in the =
pattern,
> I  believe your intent is clear.
> 
> Keep in mind that the main purpose of XML Schema is typically to =
describe
> what your documents will look like.  Schema does have a place to put =
other
> useful information associated with a declaration called <xsd:appinfo>.
> Perhaps what you want is an enumeration with appinfos, an example of =
which
> is in the specification itself at [1].  Adapting that to your example:
> 
> <simpleType name='gender'>
>     <annotation>
>         <documentation>Used to distinguish boys from =
girls</documentation>
>     </annotation>
>     <restriction base='integer'>
>       <enumeration value='0'>
>         <annotation>
>             <documentation>Female</documentation>
>         </annotation>
>       </enumeration>
>       <enumeration value='1'>
>         <annotation>
>             <documentation>Male</documentation>
>         </annotation>
>       </enumeration>
>     </restriction>
> </simpleType>
> 
> Now the instances you'll validate will look like:
> 
> <bob>1</bob>
> <mary>0</mary>
> 
> which I suspect is what you want.  Certain schema validators will make =
it
> easy for you to use their APIs to navigate to the appinfos at runtime,
> should you wish to have your programs automatically discover the
> associations between the enumeration values and their interpretations =
as
> genders.  I hope this helps.  Note, however, that enumerations work on
> what schemas call 'values', so
> 
> <bob>0001</bob>
> 
> will also be accepted if the base type is integer.  If you prefer you =
can
> make the basetype string, in which case only the exact character =
string
> you put into the enumeration will match, I.e. '0' or '1' respectively.
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#rf-enumeration
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Christian Setzkorn" <christian@s...>
> Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w...
> 09/04/2006 06:54 AM
> 
>         To:     <xmlschema-dev@w...>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        XML schema for ordinal/nominal variables
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I would like to define nominal/ordinal variables as XML schema. Both =
types
> of variables are characterized by code/string pairs. Here code is a =
real
> number.
> 
> Example of the nominal variable Gender:
> 
> code/string
> #######
> 1/male
> 0/female
> 
> Example of the ordinal variable Agreement:
> 
> code/string
> #######
> 0/strongly disagree
> 1/disagree
> 2/agree
> 3/strongly agree
> 
> My first attempt to define 'Gender' is this:
> 
> <xs:element name = "gender" >
>                  <xs:simpleType>
>                                  <xs:restriction base = "xs:string" =
>
>                                                  <xs:pattern value "0
> female | 1 male" />
>                                  </xs:restriction>
>                  </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:element>
> 
> Could this be improved?
> 
> Any feedback would be very much appreciated. Many thanks in advance.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Christian Setzkorn
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: =
01/09/2006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: =
01/09/2006
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: =
01/09/2006
 


From noah_mendelsohn@u... Tue Sep 05 19:41:09 2006
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68])
	by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1GKgnF-0003z6-2K
	for xmlschema-dev@l...; Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:41:09 +0000
Received: