> > BTW, since the proposal for relative location is an
> *addition* to the
> > civic location, why are you considering it compound?
> Together, they are two different types of information. Is
> there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong
> with calling it compound?
I am/was deriving the definition of *compound* from the 3825 illustration of
'part geo, part civic'. Hence, relative location is *all* civic, therefore
didn't fit the derived definition. But, it's certainly obvious by now that
I'm not a XML schema junkie. Actually, I don't view relative location as
'different' from elements like: seat, cubicle, room, etc. I intend to
define the scope/applicability of the relative loc better in the next
version of the draft.
Ecrit mailing list