Re: [xml-dev] A single, all-encompassing data validation language - good

["Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@googlemail.com>]

I seem to recall that the approach to embedding schematron rules directly into W3C schema have been somewhat defined already, although of course I'm not sure whether there are validating parsers support this style natively (I have the feeling that Daniel Cazzulino's schemaTron.Net used to, but I'm not sure what happened to this implementation).

 

The following article written back in 2002 by Eddie Robertsson describes the notational conventions :-

 

http://www.topologi.com/public/Schtrn_XSD/Paper.html#Embedded_Schematron_Rules_W3C

I recall other articles from Dare Abasanjo amongst others.

 

Fraser.

 

On 07/08/07, Paul Kiel <paul@xmlhelpline.com> wrote:

Interesting thread.  I would agree not to reinvent the wheel in terms of
schematron.  What I hear from clients and would like to see myself is a way
to add the schematron-like constraints to a schema and validate in one pass.
As it is now, it takes 2 passes to validate.  Once for the schema and
another to validate the additional constraints.  If the "hooks" you mention
would lead parser writers to incorporate validation of both of these in one
pass, then I would say "yea!".

Cheers,
Paul Kiel




=====================================================
W. Paul Kiel
xmlHelpline.com Consulting
paul@xmlhelpline.com
work: 919-846-0224
cell: 919-449-8801
website: http://www.xmlhelpline.com
Your helpline for data integration solutions.
=====================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org ]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:33 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] A single, all-encompassing data validation language -
good or bad for the marketplace?

Chris Scott wrote:

> Since we already have ISO Schematron, why not define a standard way
to
> include Schematron in XML Schema?  ... why reinvent the wheel?

This seems reasonable to me.  Rather than the XML Schema working group
essentially reinventing a less-powerful version of Schematron, wouldn't
it be more beneficial to the marketplace if the XML Schema working
group created standard "hooks" for inclusion of Schematron
patterns/rules/assertions?  Then a user has the option of implementing
data validation requirements either by embedding Schematron into an XML
Schema, or keeping the schemas separate in a pipeline fashion.

And hey XML Schema working group, how about also creating standard
hooks for inclusion of other schema languages, such as Relax NG and
RefleX?  And how about supporting a building block approach to
implementing data validation requirements?

Rick Jelliffe, how about jumping into this discussion?

/Roger

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php





_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php