RE: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

["Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>]

True in a purely software oriented design, Rick.  OTOH, with FpML for
example, you will want to look at the contracts to determine if the
customer actually wants the schema to be tighter with regards to the
values reported or constrained.

You have to know the precise questions for the precise roles and you
have to be able to understand the answers. If the wrong people ask the
right questions of the right people, you are no better off. Move those
terms around and you get the same results.  Sometimes separation of
concerns hides the concerns that motivated the creation of the language
from those who demanded those who paid for it pay for it.

See J.P. Morgan and the SEC.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@allette.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:10 AM
To: Costello, Roger L.
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

I think, to some extent, that the relative success in some places of
XSD + Schematron (or RELAX NG + Schematron, or DTD + Schematron) is
due to a software engineering issue completely removed from the
relative strengths and weakness of grammars versus paths, let alone
other motivating differences.

It is the need for a separation of concerns. When someone adopts XSD
1.1 assertions, they are perhaps saying "we do not want a separation
of concerns", which may be fine.  But Conway's Law suggests that if we
really *do* have a separation of organizational units, we need to
organize our software systems accordingly.

I have reached the stage where I think every enumerated list in an XSD
(or RELAX NG, or DTD) should be regarded as guilty until proven
useful, unless they are stable and unlikely to change in the lifetime
of a schema.

For example, an enumerated list for months is fine: I don't expect to
see the French decimal calendar re-introducted.  A list of US states
and territories is likely to be stable.  An enumerated list of
publication types is likely to be not stable.  The more that something
looks like data finds its way into the base schema, the more that the
alarm bells should ring (I don't mean this as FUD that terrible
unspecified things may happen, I mean that there are very practical
issues of maintainability that a separation of concerns addresses.)

So the technical rivalry between Schematron and XSD 1.1, such as it
is, really takes place at this software engineering level, even before
capabilities, power, friendliness and convenience (etc) are weighed
up.


Cheers
Rick  Jelliffe




On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Costello, Roger L.
<costello@mitre.org> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> XML Schema 1.1 became a full recommendation on April 5, 2012.
>
> Are organizations using it? Are you using it?
>
> In my small world there hasn't been an overwhelming uptake of it.
Perhaps that will change, however.
>
> XML Schema 1.0 became a full recommendation on October 28, 2004.
>
> So there has been eight years for organizations to spend a lot of time
and money developing 1.0 schemas. In the process, those organizations
discovered that 1.0 was lacking in certain capabilities (such as
co-constraint checking) so they supplemented XSD 1.0 with Schematron.
>
> Now, in 2012, organizations are well entrenched in their 1.0 XSDs plus
their Schematron schemas. They have invested heavily in these
technologies. And they have expertise in these technologies. And there
is good support for these technologies.
>
> What incentive do organizations have for moving to XML Schema 1.1?
>
> There are some things provided by 1.1 that can't be accomplished using
the combination of 1.0 plus Schematron.  And 1.1 makes some things more
convenient. Are they sufficient to justify switching?
>
> Perhaps it would have been better for 1.1 to have provided radical new
capabilities -- capabilities that totally cannot be obtained with the
existing combination of 1.0 plus Schematron.
>
> What do you think? Will XML Schema 1.1 be embraced by the XML
community?
>
> Or, will it be turned aside and organizations continue with the
investments they have already made in 1.0 and Schematron?
>
> Was the duration between 1.0 and 1.1 too long? In the eight year
duration the world has changed. Have those changes impacted the
usefulness of 1.1?
>
> Would it be useful to create an XML Schema 1.2 that provides radical
new capabilities? If yes, what radical new capabilities do you desire?
>
> /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