I was thinking about the definitions I extracted from XPath 3.1 Definitions Here! Definitions There! Definitions Everywhere! XPath/XQuery 3.1 and since the XPath 3.1 draft says:
Because these languages are so closely related, their grammars and language descriptions are generated from a common source to ensure consistency, and the editors of these specifications work together closely.
We are very likely to find that the material contained in definitions and the paragraphs containing definitions are in fact the same.
To make the best use of your time then, what is needed is a single set of the definitions from XPath 3.1, XQuery 3.1, XQueryX 3.1, XQuery and XPath Data Model 3.1, and XQuery Functions and Operators 3.1.
I say that, but then on inspecting some of the definitions in XQuery and XPath Data Model 3.1, I read:
[Definition: An atomic value is a value in
the value space of an atomic type and is labeled with the name of
that atomic type.][Definition: An atomic type is a primitive
simple type or a type derived by restriction from another
atomic type.] (Types derived by list or union are not atomic.)
But in the file of definitions from XPath 3.1, I read:
[Definition: An atomic value is a value in the value space of an atomic type, as defined in [XML Schema 1.0] or [XML Schema 1.1].]
Not the same are they?
What happened to:
and is labeled with the name of that atomic type.
That seems rather important. Yes?
The phrase “atomic type” occurs forty-six (46) times in the XPath 3.1 draft, none of which define “atomic type.”
It does define “generalized atomic type:”
[Definition: A generalized atomic type is a type which is either (a) an atomic type or (b) a pure union type ].
Which would make you think it would have to define “atomic type” as well, to declare the intersection with “pure union type.” But it doesn’t.
In case you are curious, XML Schema 1.1 doesn’t define “atomic type” either. Rather it defines “anyAtomicType.”
In XML Schema 1.0 Part 1, the phrase “atomic type” is used once and only once in “3.14.1 (non-normative) The Simple Type Definition Schema Component,” saying:
Each atomic type is ultimately a restriction of exactly one such built-in primitive datatype, which is its {primitive type definition}.
There is no formal definition nor is there any further discussion of “atomic type” in XML Schema 1.0 Part 1.
XML Schema Part 2 is completely free of any mention of “atomic type.”
Summary of the example:
At this point we have been told that XPath 3.1 relies on XQuery and XPath Data Model 3.1 but also XML Schema 1 and XML Schema 1.1, which have inconsistent definitions of “atomic type,” when it exists at all.
Moreover, XPath 3.1 relies upon undefined term (atomic value) to define another term (generalized atomic type), which is surely an error in any reading.
This is a good illustration of what happens when definitions are not referenced from other documents with specific and resolvable references. Anyone checking such a definition would have noticed it missing in the referenced location.
Summary on next steps:
I was going to say a deduped set of definitions would serve for proofing all the drafts and now, despite the “production from a common source,” I’m not so sure.
Probably the best course is to simply extract all the definitions and check them for duplication rather than assuming it.
The questions of what should be note material and other issues will remain to be explored.