<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<essay xml:lang="en" version="5.0" xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:gal="http://norman.walsh.name/rdf/gallery#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/">
<info>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
<title>New Data Model draft</title><biblioid class="uri">http://norman.walsh.name/2006/07/11/xdm</biblioid>
<volumenum>9</volumenum>
<issuenum>65</issuenum>
<pubdate>2006-07-11T16:55:34-04:00</pubdate>
<date>$Date: 2006-07-11 17:52:29 -0400 (Tue, 11 Jul 2006) $</date>
<author>
      <personname>
<firstname>Norman</firstname>
	<surname>Walsh</surname>
</personname>
    </author>
<copyright>
      <year>2006</year>
      <holder>Norman Walsh</holder>
    </copyright>
<abstract>
<para>XPath 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Data Model fans, a new draft was
published today. It'll be of interest to those especially concerned
about the finer details of element and attribute node types and type
value determination.</para>
</abstract>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#W3C"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XML"/>
<dc:subject rdf:resource="http://norman.walsh.name/knows/taxonomy#XSLT2"/>
</info>

<epigraph>
<para xml:id="p2">Truth lies within a little uncertain compass, but
error is immense.
</para>
</epigraph>

<para xml:id="p1">Mea culpa. What happened was, a month or two ago,
the Working Group's
agreed to a proposal for changes to sections
<citetitle xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#PSVI2NodeTypes">3.3.1.1
Element and Attribute Node Type Names</citetitle> and
<citetitle xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#TypedValueDetermination">3.3.1.2 Typed Value Determination</citetitle> of the
<citetitle xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/">XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM)</citetitle>.</para>

<para xml:id="p3">Wearing my editor hat, I dutifully accepted,
reviewed, and implemented those changes. I know this because I
remember doing it, I remember calling one of the authors of the
proposal to discuss part of it, and I closed the relevant bugs in the
bug database. And then…I don't know what happened.</para>

<para xml:id="p4">There's no record of my commit in the CVS log and
the document published on 8 June 2006 with all of the other
specifications did not include the changes.</para>

<para xml:id="p5">It's an area of the specification that's a bit
subtle, and the changes are ones that we wanted to give the public an
opportunity to review. So I argued, persuasively, at the last
face-to-face meeting, that the most responsible course of action was
to republish the document immediately with the necessary revisions.
That's what happened today.</para>

<para xml:id="p6">Unfortunately, even the revisions, which I do think
are an improvement, have to address the specific details in the schema
specification with a little less precision than would be ideal. This
was deemed unavoidable given the organization of the relevant details
in the schema specification.</para>

<para xml:id="p7">Anyway, it's out now and you should take a look if
you have interest in this level of detail.</para>

</essay>

