Re: Terminology: "Foo has the string data type" or "Foo is the string data type" or "Foo has a data type that is a string" or something else? (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Sorry for the excessive email, but that last point I wrote made no sense.  Here is something a bit more clear:

4. Since you can identify a reference by Foo with more specificity than a look up of any of its single parts it would be most efficient to start with the known reference point and then draw relationships to each part of that reference.

Austin

On 04/04/12, "Cheney, Edward A SSG RES USAR USARC"  <[email protected]> wrote:

> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> My answer:  The data type of Foo is string.
> 
> This implies a few things:
> 
> 1. Foo is a proper identifier where reuse is irrelevant.
> 2. All instances of Foo relate to its single definition.
> 3. Since there is only a single definition of the Foo element its relationship to its parts is inherent in the definition provided to schema.
> 4. Since Foo is a proper identifier and the type value is not always start with the identifier and relate its parts back to its name.
> 
> In my mind nothing else matters.
> 
> Austin
> 
> On 04/04/12, "Costello, Roger L."  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > Consider this element declaration:
> > 
> >       <element name="Foo" type="string" />
> > 
> > What is the proper way of expressing the relationship between Foo and the string data type?
> > 
> >     (a) Foo has the string data type.
> > 
> >     (b) Foo has a string data type.
> > 
> >     (c) Foo is of the string data type.
> > 
> >     (d) Foo is a string data type.
> > 
> >     (e) Foo has a data type that is a string.
> >  
> >     (f) Foo is a string.
> > 
> >     (g) Something else.
> > 
> > /Roger 
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED