Thanks for this, Ray!
At 2006-09-07 16:30 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>One of our interests at the Library of Congress is to be able to point to
>an external codelist, rather than include it within an XML schema. (I'm not
>talking about validating, which I accept is out-of-scope.)
So, perhaps, this would be for guiding data entry
using a tool that only supported W3C Schema?
>In other words, instead of saying:
>
><xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
><xsd:enumeration value="1"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="2"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="3"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="4"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="5"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="6"/>
><xsd:enumeration value="7"/>
></xsd:restriction>
>
>You could say:
><xsd:restriction base="xsd:string" codelist="http://....."/>
>
>There is no such syntax yet (that I'm aware of), most likely because there
>is no standard codelist format yet. But it might be as simple as above --
>defining a 'codelist' attribute on the restriction element within the schema
>language. Of course it would need to be accepted into the language by the
>W3C.
The XML nature of any code list representation
would allow you to transform your "master"
genericode expression into the existing W3C Schema expression.
>(I know there are suggested approaches using 'import' and 'include' but
>these are too sloppy.
An interesting adjective to use ... though I
agree these constructs in W3C Schema are somewhat
limited. The RELAX-NG equivalents appear to me
to have more power. To me rather than being
"sloppy" they are too rigid in W3C
Schema. Import and include provide very useful
modularization facilities in standards like W3C Schema, RELAX-NG, XSLT, etc.
>We currently use comments or annotations to point to
>external lists. But when we have a standard format for a codelist, and if
>there is syntax to point to it, people will begin to develop validation
>software.)
>
>I think this would have significant utility, and it seems so simple.
Yes, though it does seem repetitive in that it
duplicates existing functionality (however
limited the enumeration of a set of values is that is already there).
>Would
>it be reasonable for this TC to formulate a recommendation along these
>lines, and forward it to the W3C?
There are procedures to do so, but in my
standards experience I have not seen the
introduction of something new that supplants
something that exists. What features of
genericode do you think would overwhelmingly
convince the W3C Schema committee that a new
requirement is being met that is not being met by
the existing standard? It would be on such a
basis that this would even be considered by them.
What I believe you *have* identified is a
specific committee deliverable which could be,
say, an XSLT stylesheet that converts an instance
of genericode into an instance of W3C Schema
enumerations suitable for incorporation into an existing W3C Schema expression.
Then users of genericode would be in a position,
when setting up, say, an authoring environment,
to run a workflow process each time a genericode
file is updated to simultaneously synthesize a
parallel W3C Schema expression of the enumeration
suitable for all tasks based on that
technology. Same for RELAX-NG. One could even
produce an external parameter entity for use with
DTD-expressed constraints. I can picture that
our deliverable could include each of these as
supplemental tools tuned to the particular delivery of genericode.
I look forward to any other opinions by group members.
Thanks again, Ray!
. . . . . . . . . . . Ken
--
UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Vårø, Denmark 2006-10-02/06,11-20/24
UBL International 2006 2006-11-13/17 http://www.ublconference.com
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman mailto:
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
