OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

The real issue, I fear, is how many tools support it.


Lots of folks would use it as long as the object shim next to the data is generated by someone else.

Lots of folks would use it as soon as their front end processors does.


Early last Fall (the last time I looked hard) there was minimal tooling, and less in the .NET space.




"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop

U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee


Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Phone: (919)619-2104

blog: www.NewDaedalus.com



From: Stephen D Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Costello, Roger L.
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?


Use Case: Use of XML Schema 1.1 to strongly type a .NET DataSet


i.e. Whether code which previously used XML Schema 1.0 for strongly typed

'datasets' and supplemented that dataset with checks on co-constraints

in handwritten code or in a combination of code and stored business rule

logic in a database or a file - whether that code would benefit from a use

of XML Schema 1.1 to associate the co-constraint business rules somehow

with the strongly typed 'datasets'.


Following on from Ken's message about the UBL use case, I must admit

that in my use case above I tend to think the co-constraints are in many

real situations going to benefit from being easier to change than if they were

embedded in an XML Schema deep within the code. Putting such volatile

things as co-constraint logic in such a relatively inaccessible place as an

XML schema used to support the typing of a DataSet or similar structure

does seem sub-optimal for your average business application.



Stephen D Green

On 14 August 2012 13:49, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Roger


As a C# / SQL Server developer by day and XML enthusiast by night I've witnessed a great

synergy between XML Schema 1.0 and the database where tons of code can be circumvented

with a schema-typed 'dataset' within the code and a corresponding database set of tables in

the database. The missing piece was a way to add co-constraints with a similar reduction in

the amount of code a so-armed web developer needed to write. At the moment it seems a

developer still spends a lot of time writing code for business rules which actually amount to

little more than coded co-constraints (co-constraints on the data in tables and corresponding

data structures/types). It would seem to me a good progression toward less code and more 

agility to add co-constraints a la XML Schema 1.1 in .NET. In the meantime I'll carry on coding

all those business rule co-constraints myself or dumping them into a table - keeps me in a job.  


Stephen D Green

On 14 August 2012 13:22, 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?



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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS