womullan at skysrv.pha.jhu.edu
Wed Mar 3 14:02:49 PST 2004
Perhaps Masatoshi can comment but I would like an XSD to be going on
with for development.
The Paper specification we can work some more on but I would also like that we could move that to Recommendations for or before the IVOA meeting in May.
I think tat will be facilitated by having some working stuff with the XML.
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 03:49:25PM -0600, Ray Plante wrote:
> A couple of quick comments on v0.7.3.
> First, on inspection of the examples, this looks a lot nicer. I've asked
> Ramon to create a new stylesheet for this version; that may ferret out
> other issues.
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Tony Linde wrote:
> > We need a clear statement of how the current v0.7.3 is generated (and also
> > how v0.7.1 aka 0.8 was generated).
> Just for clarification, what is the motivation here? If it is just so
> that we understand the development process, this would certainly be good
> to have. If the statement is intended for the specification, this may or
> may not be needed.
> For the spec, what we need are definitive statements about what defines
> the ADQL syntax and semantics. We have two choices:
> o We say that ADQL/x is defined by a schema derived from this process....
> This would presumably incorporate the derivation of the ADQL/s
> o We say that ADQL/x is defined by this XML Schema (in the appendix)....
> In this case, we also need to spell out,
> 1. Precise definitions of each element in the schema.
> 2. How it maps to ADQL/s
> My complaint with the last draft of the spec was that it really didn't do
> With regards to the cardinality issue, I am against the idea of allowing
> 2* for functions like add, div, and, & or. These are mathematically
> defined as two-operand operations, and so our XML model should reflect
> this. The fact that it raises the issue of order of operation is a good
> thing; we must deal with this.
> As I've mentioned, my own reading of the SQL-92 standard suggests that
> ANDs and ORs are evaluated left-to-right in the absence of parentheses;
> however, I don't feel 100% on this. The alternate interpretation would be
> that its system dependent. Since we are developing ADQL for
> cross-database queries, I don't think this latter state is good one to be
More information about the voql