W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > September 2002

Re:%20How%20Do%20I%20Force%20Instances%20To%20Use%20Specific%20Derived%20Types?&In-Reply-To=<f5bwupry34n.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>&R

From: <Joe.Misner@ivans.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <"0912132527-Re:20How20Do20I20Force20Instances20To20Use20Specific2*/G=Joe/S=Misner/O=ivans/PRMD=notes/ADMD=mailconnect/C=us/"@MHS>





Thank you for the prompt reply.  I agree that your solution would solve the 
problem that I described.  However, it raises two other issues in my mind, one 
practical and the other legal/philosophical:

1.  The practical problem: What if companyB wants to require its trading 
partners to provide specific EXTENDED content, rather than restricted content, 
in their instances of TypeA?  As I understand it, xsd:redefine only supports 
restrictions.  It is certainly a real-world case that a specific user of a 
vertical-market standard may need additional data in a type defined by a third 
party that he wishes to require from his trading partners.

2.  The legal/philosophical problem: I had always thought that the sole purpose 
of xsd:redefine was to allow a single organization to evolve the definition of 
its own schemas over time without having to publish complete replacement 
documents.  That (I thought) was why its use was restricted to the same 
namespace as the original schema.  I also thought that xsd:import was the sole 
sanctioned way for one organization to make use of another organization's 
schema, and that it intentionally provided "read-only" access to the components 
defined in the external schema.  Aren't there big problems with intellectual 
property issues if one organization targets another organization's namespace 
and redefines it?  Wouldn't it create chaos in a large marketplace if there 
were numerous (re)definitions of the same namespace circulating around the web? 
 Isn't it conceivable or even likely that OrgA may make its schema available to 
users on a contractual read-only basis, so that they can import it but not 
redefine it?   If OrgA's namespace name is derived from a registered Internet 
name which might even be trademarked, can other parties just freely redefine 
it?

Consider if the xsd namespace itself were redefined by numerous users.  Who 
could then say anything definitive about the semantics of the various xsd 
elements?  Wouldn't your solution create similar chaos in a vertical market?
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 09:45:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:34 GMT