[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Schemas and the open world assumption.
- From: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:04:10 +0200
Hello everyone.
Sorry to be 5 years late, but it is just today that I question myself
about derivation by extension and closed world assumption.
Please do not hesitate to comment the following points:
If I define "a" as being a sequence of b,c:
<a>
<b/>
<c/>
</a>
and i extend "a" into "aa" that extends that sequence with d:
<aa>
<b/>
<c/>
<d/>
</aa>
then any "aa" will not validate against the definition of "a".
right?
this sounds like a MAJOR difference with OO paradigm (where any "aa" is
also a "a").
that is what i call the closed world assumption in xml validation.
considering i need a more open world approach, i plan
to relax my schema by defining "a" in this way:
<a>
<b/>
<c/>
<xsd:any>
</a>
then i feel like i could extend my "a" definition without breaking
the "subclass" philosophy.
can anyone comment that point of view?
i am especially interested in possible pitfalls i could have missed in
using the "any" statement.
i am also interested in best practices when defining modular expandable models.
any help is very welcome.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]