Re: [xml-dev] Constraining a Schema

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thanks to Mulberry and their Balisage conference 
last month, I discuss in this paper the UBL 
approach of publishing a comprehensive schema 
expecting users to create a subset schema:

http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol22/html/Holman01/BalisageVol22-Holman01.html

In particular around figure 9 I discuss the idea 
that subset schemas are good for generation of 
XML but not for consumption if one wishes to be 
more interoperable with XML from other subsets.

I hope this is helpful.

. . . . . Ken

At 2018-08-15 17:25 -0400, John Dziurlaj wrote:
> I am working with a schema that is purposely lax 
> (i.e. it may allow too many occurrences, may 
> contain irrelevant elements, etc.) so that it 
> can handle a broad range of customer scenarios. 
> I now have a customer that wants to constrain 
> the schema such that only a subset of the 
> functionality is available. This subset is 
> expected to validate against its larger parent. 
> I’ve come up with a number of different approaches to handle this:
> Â
>    * Subset schema using available XML tooling. 
> A standalone derivative will be produced.
>    * Create a new schema, referencing the old 
> one, but derive all the types by restriction.
>    * Use XML Assertions
>    * Use Schematron
>    * Use CAMV
> Â
> My preference is to use a XML Schema native 
> approach (1-3), using XSD 1.0 only constructs if 
> possible (1-2), as the actual used XML processor 
> that gets used is outside my control.
> Â
> Does anyone have ideas on a good approach?
> Â
> John Dziurlaj
> Â
> Elections Consultant
> Hilton Roscoe LLC
> Cell 330-714-8935 Work/Fax 234-706-6434
> Â

--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |