Re: [xml-dev] Schemas and the open world assumption.

[michael odling-smee <mike.odlingsmee@gmail.com>]

Oliver,

I think the substitionGroup concept is what you require to treat the types polymorphically. Here substitutable types must be derived from the same base type (which may or may not be abstract). If you are validating via schema the enclosing type can reference the substitution group rather than the explicit types. Also, whilst I have never personally looked at it I understand that XSLT template <<match>> and XPath <<instance of>> or <<treat as>> operators respect substitution groups if you use a schema aware processor.

 I suppose the difference with OO languages such as Java is that you have to declare substitution explicitly - in Java simply subclassing another class (or implementing an interface) is enough.

Michael

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Jim Tivy <jimt@bluestream.com> wrote:

Hi Oliver

Not sure I fully follow - could you provide the XML Schema types and syntax?
I am not sure if a and aa are types or elements - seems like you may mean
they are both?

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Rossel [mailto:olivier.rossel@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:04 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] Schemas and the open world assumption.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________

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