Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Seaborne [mailto:email@example.com]
> I would concur with Roland Merrick on this issue. The XForms model has
> potential as a way of defining distributable business rule sets (whether
> not you need a form).
I started reviewing ver 1.1 of the specs after Roland's comments. It's my
feeling that a language to express business rules deserves to be a first
class citizen in the standards world. If the XForms workgroup considers
expanding on their dynamic model (add rule grouping mechanisms,
context-sensitive embedding in XSD, standardized error reporting ...etc) and
branching out the effort into a separate standard that works equally well
with XForms and with other standards, then that would be something
wonderful. How about it W3C?
> The nice thing is that it the declarative rules are
> designed to layer over an existing XML schema language (W3C XML Schema).
> the XForms model could be seen as XSD extensions
I'll read more about this, but what I know so far is that XForms uses the
XML Schema data types. Is there more to it?
> I notice that you have already had a reply from Rick Jelliffe, mentioning
> that Schematron is also a good fit for your requirements. You might want
> look at the ISO DSDL activity that is working to allow combinations of
> NG and Schematron schemas. In many ways the combination of XSD + XForms
> Model mirrors Relax NG + Schematron.
> So, if you think you can build on work that has already been done, or is
> progress, or even feed requirements directly into those efforts, please
That's the general plan. If there is enough similarity and compatibility,
convergence makes a lot of sense. I'll study this in more detail. Thanks
Mark and Rick for the pointers.