W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > December 2000

Schema validation terminology

From: Michael Anderson <michael@research.canon.com.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:48:57 +1100
Message-ID: <3A2EB448.D965F0F2@research.canon.com.au>
To: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Hi all,

I'm trying to get my head around how a schema can be "valid" and would
like to start with the terminology.  Here is how I think it is, bearing
in mind this is in regard to the _Schema_.

1. Simple case first - If there is simply something wrong with the
schema ( ie has minOccurs = "-3" ) then the schema is "invalid".
2. If the schema has nothing wrong with it and all definitions and
declarations (I'll call these components) _do_not_ reference any other
component then the schema is "valid"
3. If the schema has nothing wrong with it, but it contains components
that _do_ reference other components then there are three
possibilities.  For the three possibilites consider the declaration:
    <element ref = "food:WeetBix" />
    3.1 The WeetBix element in the "food" namespace _can_ be resolved
and there is nothing wrong with this WeetBix element - Then the schema
is still "valid"
    3.2 The WeetBix element in the "food" namespace _can_ be resolved
but there is something wrong with it - Then the schema is now "invalid"
    3.3 The WeetBix element in the "food" namespace _can_not_ be
resolved. - Then the schema is now "partial".

Is this right? Are there three levels of validity for a  _Schema_?
Invalid, Partial and Valid?

mick.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 16:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:19 GMT