|
List Info
Thread: Schematron for meps
|
|
| Schematron for meps |
|
2006-12-20 12:33:02 |
> Please find in attachment an attempt to capture some
constraints
> relating the mep of an operation with its message
children.
> These constraints are written as schematron assertions.
This may ease
> the authoring of WSDL documents.
cool!
> Paul, with all the good work you have done on the XML
data binding WG, I
> would be grateful if you could have a quick look at it.
Er, OK. Bah, my webmail now blocks .xml as a dangerous
attachment?!
Looks at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public
/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/att-0076/meprules.xml
Seems sound -
I prefer to "assert" constraints and
"report" interesting
valid content, but that's a style thing.
I wonder how many other constraints we can express in such
as
schema, are we planning to make this schema normative to
live
alongside the XML Schema?
We could embed such co-constraints into the normative XML
Schema,
but I much prefer to keep XPaths out of XML Schema documents
as a "separation of concerns".
Paul
|
|
| Schematron for meps |
|
2006-12-23 03:09:10 |
|
Youenn/Paul/All Gurus,
Missed this email by a few days ! Thanks for bringing this up. I have quickly updated the schematron with around 12 assertions from my end, and am attaching it with this email.
Overall, I had a few concerns.I am not sure how we can use Schematron when you have document import/include scenarios, and you have components that are defined within nested "includes". Also validating cross referenced QNames/components [that cd be defined in different XML documents] is something I do not know.
T he only way I cd think of is through usage of custom XPath functions to be used within the schematron that enable this kind of a resolution.
This is just an very early thought I have. Please pardon my ignorance if I am wrong.
I have referred to a few of these custom xpath functions within the sch file attached.
For instance, I wd assume the usage of functions like
custom:resolveBinding(QName) that returns a binding node within a specified QName in the current and all imported/included documents.
So, generically, we wd have functions like custom:resolve<Component>(QName of component) that returns a node corresponding to the component in the model that has the specified QName.
Similarly, we also need a custom functions on the lines of the XSLT function document() that is capable of building a document that includes all the "included" documents in the main document.
But I am not sure what it means to refer to these custom functions in a normative schematron for WSDL. If it makes sense, great! and Merry Christmas, or else well, Merry Christmas 
Do let me know your thoughts on this.
rgds,
Ram
On 12/20/06, bt.com" target="_blank">paul.downey bt.com <bt.com" target="_blank">
paul.downeybt.com>; wrote:
> Please find in attachment an attempt to capture some constraints
> relating the mep of an operation with its message children.
> These constraints are written as schematron assertions. This may ease
> the authoring of WSDL documents.
cool!
> Paul, with all the good work you have done on the XML data binding WG, I
> would be grateful if you could have a quick look at it.
Er, OK. Bah, my webmail now blocks .xml as a dangerous attachment?!
Looks at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/att-0076/meprules.xml
Seems sound -
I prefer to "assert" constraints and "report" interesting
valid content, but that's a style thing.
I wonder how many other constraints we can express in such as
schema, are we planning to make this schema normative to live
alongside the XML Schema?
We could embed such co-constraints into the normative XML Schema,
but I much prefer to keep XPaths out of XML Schema documents
as a "separation of concerns".
Paul
--
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
|
| Schematron for meps |
|
2006-12-23 14:08:48 |
|
|
[1-3]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|