xml-dev - Re: W3C XML Schema Questionaire

[Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr (Je'ro^me Euzenat)]

0. How would you describe yourself?

[  ]  Programmer
[  ]  Software Architect
[  ]  Consultant
[  ]  XML content developer
[  ]  Web developer
[  ]  Database developer
[X ]  Other (please describe) Researcher (closest to software arch. here).


1. What have you done with Schema?

[  ]  I have read the working drafts.
[X ]  I have written schemas based on the Working Drafts.
       (Roughly how many schemas have you written?) 2
[  ]  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?

Yes xml4j early release (that will be soon one year ago).

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.
[X ]  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.
=> I think all features are worthwile (there is some I would like to 
see added, e.g. extensible datatype -- I mean really extensible -- 
and some I will never use -- e.g. keys). But trying to put all there 
at once is too big a challenge, especially with all those guys coming 
from different horizons and wanting their features to be there). So, 
I think that Schema is not modular enough.

6. Is the design of Schema too complex?

[  ]  Schema is not complex.
[/ ]  Schema is complex, but the features it offers justify this complexity.
[X ]  Schema is much too complex, even for the features it offers.
=> add modularity and I go to the second answer.

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.
=> it depends how flawed it is and how long iit takes.

8. Feature set

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

[X ] XML notation for schemas.
[X ] Data types.
[X ] Schema composition.
[/ ] Identity constraints.
[X ] Refinement.
[  ] Element equivalence classes.
[/ ] Attribute-group definitions.
[  ] Nulls and nullability.
[  ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document.
	=> the last one is new to me ;-).

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

I have not read them since february (when I noted that I had changed again).
The main issues to my opinion are:
- the documents do not clearly state the philosophy of each feature;
- and they do not provide all the information (especially the 
negative info about false expectation -- but its less criptic than 
XML-Rec).
These comments are also true of some other spec (e.g. MathML). And I 
think that, overall, the Schema documents are better than RDF's.

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

=> This one is too long for what it does.

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.
[X ]  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?

Carefully droping things that are not in a clearly definitive state taking care
that they could be added later on.

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
=> This completely depends on software availability. I think that everyone has
been happy to wait for XSLT because XT was available (and 
corresponding to what was on the paper). At the time I looked at 
Schema, this was not the case and at the cadence the Schema group 
adds new features, I would bet they did not implemented them at the 
same time.

Hope this helps,
-- 
                                  __
  Jérôme Euzenat                  /      /\
                                _/  _   _   _ _    _
  INRIA Rhône-Alpes,           /_) | ` / ) | \ \  /_)
                              (___/___(_/_/  / /_(_________________
  655, avenue de l'Europe     /
  38330 Montbonnot St Martin,/          Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr
  France____________________/          http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo

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