Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: UBL-Dev <email@example.com>, XML-Dev Mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Re: [xml-dev] Re: [ubl-dev] UBL 2.0 and Schema Extensibility
- From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:28:34 +0200
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 2006-05-16 06:58 -0700, David RR Webber \(XML\) wrote:
>Clearly the misunderstanding is with people believing that W3C Schema is
>a business validation technology.
>I believe we have established that the best practice here is to use XSD
>just for structural definition and content modelling - but then to
>extend this with a second layer that supports context, role and
>business validations directly.
We have claimed it, David, and we have established it in our own
minds with illustrative proof.
It would seem that we have not established it in the community and
that is the nub of Fraser's concerns and the concerns of those on my
teleconference this morning. And I acknowledge their concerns
because they have been told that W3C Schema is the answer to
everything and many of the tools deployed were created by vendors
with the same beliefs.
And I want to allay their concerns and bring them around to
understanding there are real-world needs for working with XML that
are not satisfied using a single technology.
My concern as it came across in my call this morning was that a
programmer who puts aside the additional layers in the interest of
"simplicity" will shoehorn an inappropriate technology to solve a
subset of the problems their users will face. When users' solutions
do not work or cannot be called compliant, they will likely blame the
technology and not the insufficient implementation.
What will the community need to see to believe that W3C Schema is not
the be-all and end-all of document validation?
And I'm asking that of the community, too, not just you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken