xml-dev - Re: W3C XML Schema Questionaire

[Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>]

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> [y ]  Programmer
> [y ]  Software Architect
> [y ]  Consultant
> [  ]  XML content developer
> [  ]  Web developer
> [  ]  Database developer
> [y ]  Other (please describe)

boat rocker and XML advocate in www.ie.com - currently involved in
legacy financial system and content management integration!

> 
> 1. What have you done with Schema?
> 
> [  ]  I have read the working drafts.

(I have *attempted* to read the WDs - I have retreated to experimenting
against the online validator)

> [y ]  I have written schemas based on the Working Drafts.
>        (Roughly how many schemas have you written?)

5, but smallish

> [y ]  I have written schemas in other schema languages such
>        as SOX, RELAX, or XML Data Reduced.
DCD, used as human readable specs, for cross-company cross-language
integration
> [y ]  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?

No, just the online validator

> 
> 3. Do you plan to use Schema?
> 
> [y ]  I, or my company, will write software based on Schema.
> [y ]  I, or my company, will depend on software based on Schema.
> [y ]  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:
> 
> [y ]  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.
> [y ]  Yes, Schema supports all the features I would like.
> [y ]  Schema supports features that I am unlikely to use.
> 
> 6. Is the design of Schema too complex?
> 
> [  ]  Schema is not complex.
> [y ]  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?
> 
> [y ]  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?
> 
> [y ] XML notation for schemas.
> [y ] Data types.
> [y ] Schema composition.
> [y ] Identity constraints.
> [y ] 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.

Sorry, just don't know enough about the features I'm not using to answer
this - some of these blanks are nulls...
> 
> 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.
> [y ] Element equivalence classes.
> [  ] Attribute-group definitions.
> [  ] Nulls and nullability.
> [y ] 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 [y ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to
> look something up?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 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.
> [y ]  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    [y  ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to
> look something up?
> Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [y  ] 5 No
> 
> Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
> Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [y  ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
> Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [   ] 3    [ y ] 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.
> [y ]  I found it hard to understand some key concepts.
> [y ]  Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this
>        document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released.

OTOH I could live with it being the reference doc if there was a
authorative user guide (not intro) which followed the golden rule:

	-	explain the problem
	-	illustrate the problem
	-	explain the solution
	-	illustrate how the solution solves the problem

> 
> 9.c. Schema 2: Datatypes
> 
> Overview: were you able to get the big picture?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to
> look something up?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out?
> Yes [  ] 1      [y ] 2     [   ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable?
> Yes [  ] 1      [  ] 2     [y  ] 3    [   ] 4    [   ] 5 No
> 
> [  ]  This is well written and helpful.
> [y ]  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.
> [y ]  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?

Knock up some knock-out use-cases and validate the feature set and
documentation against them

> 
> 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!
> [y ]  6 months
> [  ]  12 months
> [  ]  18 months
> [  ]  24 months
> 
> Jonathan
> 

-- 
Francis Norton.

Defy Convention? Deify Convention!

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************