| Re: [mdht-dev] Property Cardinality Update |
Ok will make the change why does schematron need the lower bound of “0” versus the “1” Thanks Sean On Jun 6, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Joerg Kiegeland <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Joerg - >> Ok - I was hoping to have a discussion on how this breaks the schematron because the other way breaks the OCL >> This constraint logic has always been a confusing point but if i have a base property that has a cardinality of 0..* and you define a constraint of >> “SHOULD HAVE ONE” struc docs wants the cardinality in guide to be 0..1 - if you implement this literally - it will never be “invalid” so we imply a lower property of 1 for that reason in the OCL > > The lower bound of 1 is ok - using the method enableVariation_UseOriginalLowerbound() the mdht code would normally switch between 0 or 1 - 0 for cases for schematron generation and 1 for the default case. > However this method for switching this constant is not used in the new code. > > But the upper bound is also printed as "-1" directly in the OCL , this actually breaks the syntactic correctnes of the generated schematron code. > The syntactical errors as displayed by Oxygen's XML editor - if you use the initial schematron contribution, it should also be generated if you want to reproduce it. > > Cheers > > > _______________________________________________ > mdht-dev mailing list > mdht-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdht-dev
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature