W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > June 2010

Re: XSD Interoperability Grade

From: Mark R Maxey <Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:35:33 -0500
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2982064D.7E2ED86B-ON86257735.0075FC32-86257735.0076B21E@mck.us.ray.com>
Thank you for your responses.

I've used the data bindings detector you referenced.   Unfortunately, this 
doesn't help me identify "dangerous" patterns because of the course 
granularity and category definitions as stated below.  For the detector to 
help flag patterns with questionable support, I'd need more information 
back in the generated report that could help me identify and quantify the 
risks.


Thanks again,
Mark



From:
Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
To:
Mark R Maxey <Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com>
Cc:
public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Date:
06/01/2010 03:46 PM
Subject:
Re: XSD Interoperability Grade



On Thu, 27 May 2010, Mark R Maxey wrote:

> Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and
> categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the
> categories, though.
>
> Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The
> "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no
> one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns
> everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns 
with
> identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g.,
> AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].

The tradeoff was to have in Basic all the needed patterns that were 
reasonably implemented, and the core patterns used to define the 
'advanced' ones (that are more experimental in their support or in their 
reliance on other patterns)

> I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to
> maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't
> think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to
> be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools 
don't
> support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its
> interoperability.

We have an XSLT to identify patterns, see 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/detector/test.html

> Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh
> the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various 
products?

Unfortunately the Working Group in charge of this work closed, so we 
currently can't foresee any update to this work, but other reports based 
on our work can be done independently, as all the code needed is 
available.
Cheers,

  >
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Maxey

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:36:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:20:38 GMT