[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi all,
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
I
don't know how far along anyone is, but a combination of the Schematron
approach and the Schema approach
as has been demonstrated by Rick Jeliffe looked very powerful.
Also, I think there was an announcement that Clark, Jeliffe, Holman et
al were initiating ISO work
to create a combined specification using RelaxNG. Please any of the
above correct me if I am wrong.I
tested the Topologi implementation. Regardless of the marketshare,
I was impressed with the capabilities
when working with a complex schema. It actually caught errors that
were not caught by systems with
greater market share and was simple to use. I found that combining
it with a schema editor (XML Spy) was very productive. I did not
pursue the combinations of schematron
assertions and schema productions very far, but it appeared
to be a good way to go if co-occurrence constraints were a concern (and they
usually are when the original model is a relational db).len
I'm currently working on a paper that will explain the details of embedding
Schematron rules in the <xs:appinfo> element in a W3C XML Schema. I've
put up a draft at [1] which contains some background, introduction to Schematron,
examples of embedded Schematron rules and how the validation process works.
The draft also contains a link to a zip file with all the examples used
so you can try it out yourself.
All comments are welcome.
Cheers,
/Eddie
[1] http://www.topologi.com/public/Schtrn_XSD/Paper.html
Does anyone
out there use schematron in addition to schema? I am guessing schematron
has about 0.1 % of market share. It looks like an interesting technology
we may use to define some of our document formats that cannot be completely
described in schema. If
path or semantics dependancies exists in an XML document, I think it is
reasonable to expect clients to validate with schematron if they choose;
otherwise, they can use schema with some custom imperative code (i.e. VB)
to verify the semantic dependancies.
|
