I have scenario for which i need to write the pattetn in xsd for below scenarios. pls help
1) String can have value from 0 to 4532 (max value)
2) it can also contain value in terms of ranges like 100-4352 or 100-200 or 0 - 4532 (any possible range value . max value of the range is 4532)
it can consist '-' hypen as well so i am trying to define type as String.
pls let me know if there is any better way to specify the same in xsd other than pattern.
thanks in advance.
I guess the pattern will be only chance how to do it. But I think it will be painful thing.
Just an idea - is it necessary to have this type as simple type? IMO it could be better to have it as (e.g.) complex type with two attributes (from, to). These two attributes could be of type constraining their content to the specified range 0-4532.
Related
I have a long string "AB100123485;AB10064279293-IP-1-KNPO;AB473898487-MM41". I have to extract integer value after "IP-" i.e 1 (only) what is the most efficient way ? I am using c#
Thanks
The 'most-efficient' way depends on how consistent your string is in terms of length and appearance. You can surely do this with a regular expression as a quick solution if you just want to get the digit directly following IP-.
You can utilize the RegularExpressions API, passing in your regular expression and input string.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.regularexpressions.regex.match?view=netframework-4.8#System_Text_RegularExpressions_Regex_Match_System_String_System_String_
This pattern should get you started IP-[0-9]; refine it more to your use case as needed.
For example:
Match matched = System.Text.RegularExpressions.Match(
"AB100123485;AB10064279293-IP-1-KNPO;AB473898487-MM41",
"IP-[0-9]"
);
I have the following class:
and I would like to express in OCL the following constraint:
Every String in pre must either contain ('not' and one ' ') or contain no ' '
is it possible? How can I write it?
Thank you!!
P.s. By writing ' ' I mean a whitespace.
You've done a fairly good job of using formal English so transliteration to OCL is now easy. But you have used List<> which is not a UML or OCL facility, so without providing its operations who knows? I therefore assume you use some form of Collection, possibly Sequence. (In UML you get Collections automnatically by specifying an uopper bound greater than 1.)
Ideally you could transliterate to:
pre->forAll(s |
(s.contains('not') and (s.count(' ') = 1)) or (s.count(' ') = 0))
but standard OCL has no String::contains() or String:::count() so we'll have to work a bit harder. Eclipse OCL has String::tokenize(), String:lastIndexOf() and String::matches() any of which could be used. But in Standard OCL, we probably have to resort to characters() to create a Sequence of String each containing one character.
For s.contains('not') use s.indexOf('not') >= 0
For s.count(' ') use s.characters->count(' ')
and to avoid evaluating s.characters->count(' ') twice on a poor OCL tool, introduce a let variable.
Given a Julia object of composite type, how can one determine its fields?
I know one solution if you're working in the REPL: First you figure out the type of the object via a call to typeof, then enter help mode (?), and then look up the type. Is there a more programmatic way to achieve the same thing?
For v0.7+
Use fieldnames(x), where x is a DataType. For example, use fieldnames(Date), instead of fieldnames(today()), or else use fieldnames(typeof(today())).
This returns Vector{Symbol} listing the field names in order.
If a field name is myfield, then to retrieve the values in that field use either getfield(x, :myfield), or the shortcut syntax x.myfield.
Another useful and related function to play around with is dump(x).
Before v0.7
Use fieldnames(x), where x is either an instance of the composite type you are interested in, or else a DataType. That is, fieldnames(today()) and fieldnames(Date) are equally valid and have the same output.
suppose the object is obj,
you can get all the information of its fields with following code snippet:
T = typeof(obj)
for (name, typ) in zip(fieldnames(T), T.types)
println("type of the fieldname $name is $typ")
end
Here, fieldnames(T) returns the vector of field names and T.types returns the corresponding vector of type of the fields.
I have a dataset with data collected from a form that contains various date and value fields. Not all fields are mandatory so blanks are possible and
in many cases expected, like a DeathDate field for a patient who is still alive.
How do I best represent these blanks in the data?
I represent DeathDate using xsd:dateTime. Blanks or empty spaces are not allowed. All of these are flagged as invalid when validating using Jena RIOT:
foo:DeathDate_1
a foo:Deathdate ;
time:inXSDDatetime " "^^xsd:dateTime .
foo:DeathDate_2
a foo:Deathdate ;
time:inXSDDatetime ""^^xsd:dateTime .
foo:DeathDate_3
a foo:Deathdate ;
time:inXSDDatetime "--"^^xsd:dateTime .
I prefer to not omit the triple because I need to know if it was blank on the source versus a conversion error during construction of my RDF.
What is the best way to code these missing values?
You should represent this by just omitting the triple. That's the meaning of a triple that's "not present": it's information that is (currently) unknown.
Alternatively, you can choose to give it the value "unknown"^^xsd:string when there's no death date. The solution in this case is to not datatype it as an xsd:dateTime, but just as a simple string. It doesn't have to be a string of course, you could use any kind of "special" value for this, e.g. a boolean false - just as long as it's a valid literal value that you can distinguish from actual death dates. This will solve the parsing problem, but IMHO if you do this, you are setting yourself up for headaches in processing the data further down the line (because you will need to ask queries over this data, and they will have to take two different types of values into account, plus the possibility that the field is missing).
I prefer to not omit the triple because I need to know if it was blank
on the source versus a conversion error during construction of my RDF.
This sounds like an XY problem. If there are conversion errors, your application should signal that in another way, e.g. by logging an error. You shouldn't try to solve this by "corrupting" your data.
I have a parameter called Analyst group in this format :
[Dimension].[Analyst Group].&[Nl.Workplace.Foundation]
I want to pass this parameter to another report, to filter data. Its a multi value parameter. But the other report only accepts it in this format : [KanBan].[Analyst Group].&[Nl.Workplace.Foundation]
So im trying to isolate the "Nl.Workplace.Foundation", so i can do the following thing in the Go To Report parameter expression :="[KanBan].[Analyst Group].&["& --Isolated analyst group-- &"]" to create the desired format.
So what i need is to extract the part between .&[ and ]
But i really have no idea how to isolate that part of the string.
Found a solution! If i just use the Parameter.label instead of Parameter.value it automatically does what i want!
A different solution has been found, but I will still answer the initial question. It could help.
So what i need is to extract the part between .&[ and ]
You could use a regex.
This may not be the fastest way but it can handle most of the situations.
So let's assume you have a string containing:
[Dimension].[Analyst Group].&[Nl.Workplace.Foundation]
And you want to get the following string:
Nl.Workplace.Foundation
Just use the following expression:
=System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Match("[Dimension].[Analyst Group].&[Nl.Workplace.Foundation]", "\.&\[(?<NWF>[^]]+)\]").Groups("NWF").Value
In the expression, replace the input string with your dynamic values, like for example:
=System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.Match(Fields!Dimension.Value & "." & Fields!AnalystGroup.Value, "\.&\[(?<NWF>[^]]+)\]").Groups("NWF").Value
I'm keeping the formula as simple as possible so that you can easily adapt it, with, say, handling the case where an input string will not have a match (with the above query it will return #Error).
You could do this by adding an IIF() or better, use a custom function that you can reuse in several places and will reduce the length of your expression.