xml-dev - W3C XML Schema Questionaire

[Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

A recent article on XML.com 
(http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/07/05/specs/lastword.html) raises concerns 
about the W3C XML Schema specification. As a member of the Schema WG, I'm 
still deciding how to vote on moving Schema to CR. I would be interested in 
hearing whether the members of this mailing list agree with the conclusions 
in Liora's article. I am not doing this in any official capacity, I am 
doing this because I want to know.

I'm mainly interested in the opinions of people who have actually done 
something with Schema. Please send your responses to me - I will tally the 
results and post them to this mailing list, and will also report them to 
the Schema Working Group.

For each of these questions, check as many boxes as apply, and feel free to 
add comments.

0. How would you describe yourself?

[  ]  Programmer
[  ]  Software Architect
[  ]  Consultant
[  ]  XML content developer
[  ]  Web developer
[  ]  Database developer
[  ]  Other (please describe)


1. What have you done with Schema?

[  ]  I have read the working drafts.
[  ]  I have written schemas based on the Working Drafts.
       (Roughly how many schemas have you written?)
[  ]  I have written schemas in other schema languages such
       as SOX, RELAX, or XML Data Reduced.
[  ]  I am writing software based on schemas
       (Please describe this software, unless it is confidential.)


2. Have you used XML parsers that support Schema? If so, which ones?


3. Do you plan to use Schema?

[  ]  I, or my company, will write software based on Schema.
[  ]  I, or my company, will depend on software based on Schema.
[  ]  I, or my company, will need to write Schemas.
[  ]  We will probably use schemas, but are not dependent on them.
[  ]  DTDs are adequate for my needs.
[  ]  I do not know at this time.


4. Which of the following best captures your feelings about the current 
state of Schema:

[  ]  We like it, and would like to see it become a recommendation in its 
current form.
[  ]  We like it, but we think it needs some changes.
[  ]  We need something like Schema, but it needs serious work.
[  ]  We do not need anything beyond DTD's.


5. In general, do you think Schema is feature-rich enough?

[  ]  Schema supports all the features I really need, but I would prefer more.
[  ]  Yes, Schema supports all the features I would like.
[  ]  Schema supports features that I am unlikely to use.

6. Is the design of Schema too complex?

[  ]  Schema is not complex.
[  ]  Schema is complex, but the features it offers justify this complexity.
[  ]  Schema is much too complex, even for the features it offers.


7.  How important is it to release Schema quickly?

[  ]  It is vital to ship Schema quickly, even if there are flaws.
[  ]  It is vital to make sure Schema is good, even if it takes longer.


8. Feature set

8.a. Which of the following features do you anticipate using?

[  ] XML notation for schemas.
[  ] Data types.
[  ] Schema composition.
[  ] Identity constraints.
[  ] Refinement.
[  ] Element equivalence classes.
[  ] Attribute-group definitions.
[  ] Nulls and nullability.
[  ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document.

8.b. Which of the following features seem to be unnecessary?

[  ] XML notation for schemas.
[  ] Data types.
[  ] Schema composition.
[  ] Identity constraints.
[  ] Refinement.
[  ] Element equivalence classes.
[  ] Attribute-group definitions.
[  ] Nulls and nullability.
[  ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document.

8.c. Which of the following features should be removed from the 1.0 
specification, and added to release 2.0 after the development community has 
had time to experiment with the concepts?

[  ] XML notation for schemas.
[  ] Data types.
[  ] Schema composition.
[  ] Identity constraints.
[  ] Refinement.
[  ] Element equivalence classes.
[  ] Attribute-group definitions.
[  ] Nulls and nullability.
[  ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document.

8.d. Are there important features that Schema is missing, and must have for 
a 1.0 release? If so, please list them.


9. Readability of Specifications

9.a. Schema 0: Primer

Overview: were you able to get the big picture?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to 
look something up?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Overall, which of the following statements do you most agree with:

[  ]  This is well written and helpful.
[  ]  It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job.
[  ]  There are shortcomings, but it is usable.
[  ]  I found it hard to understand some key concepts.
[  ]  Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this
       document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released.



9.b. Schema 1: Structures

Overview: were you able to get the big picture?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to 
look something up?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

[  ]  This is well written and helpful.
[  ]  It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job.
[  ]  There are shortcomings, but it is usable.
[  ]  I found it hard to understand some key concepts.
[  ]  Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this
       document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released.



9.c. Schema 2: Datatypes

Overview: were you able to get the big picture?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to 
look something up?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No

[  ]  This is well written and helpful.
[  ]  It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job.
[  ]  There are shortcomings, but it is usable.
[  ]  I found it hard to understand some key concepts.
[  ]  Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this
       document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released.



10. What do you think the Schema WG should do:

[  ]  Ship as soon as possible, without significant change.
[  ]  Ship as soon as possible, making the prose more readable,
       but without changing the design of schema itself.
[  ]  Keep the current feature set, take one more shot to improve
       both the design of schema and the prose.
[  ]  Simplify the feature set, take one more shot to improve both the
       design of schema and the prose.

11.  If the Working Group were to spend time redesigning Schema,
what do you think we should spend our time doing?

12.  If you feel the Working Group should continue working on Schema,
how long would you be willing to wait for an improved version of XML Schema?

[  ]  Shoot the engineer and ship it now!
[  ]  6 months
[  ]  12 months
[  ]  18 months
[  ]  24 months


Jonathan 


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************