W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Output Port report for validation steps

From: Achim Berndzen <achim.berndzen@xml-project.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:46:22 +0100
Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <D97BCFBF-9236-4732-ACA1-0D22335C9D21@xml-project.com>
To: Frank Steimke <fsteimke.hb@gmail.com>
Hi Frank,
thanks for your input. Having a somewhat unified error report for all validating steps in XProc 3.0 is on our agenda. Please see https://github.com/xproc/3.0-steps/issues/15
on this topic and feel free to make any suggestion on how the validation report could work.

Greetings from Germany,

Achim Berndzen


> Am 27.11.2018 um 06:30 schrieb Frank Steimke <fsteimke.hb@gmail.com>:
> Hi list,
> the editors draft specification of "XProc 3.0: Validation Steps" describes the p:validate-with-relax-ng, p:validate-with-schematron, and p:validate-with-xml-schema step for XProc 3.0.
> I'd like to suggest the output port "report", which is part of the p:validate-with-schematron step, for the two other validation steps relax-ng and xml-schema as well.
> I am quite aware that the existence of SVRL, the Schematron Validation Report Language, seems to be a fundamental difference between Schematron and to the two other types of validation. There is no standardized way to report validation errors from XSD or Relax NG validation. However, SVRL is only a recommended option. It is not a requirement that a full-conformance implementation shall be able to generate validation reports in SVRL. So that there is no standardized way to report validation errors from Schematron validation as well. This is reflected in the "Validation Steps" spec by the statement "Schematron assertions and reports, if any, must appear on the report port. The output should be in Schematron Validation Report Language (SVRL)." 
> Why not define a output port "report" for xml schema and relax ng like "validation reports, if any, must appear on the report port"? I think it would be helpfull.
> Our team is dealing with the electronic invoices, defined by the european norm EN 16931. To check whether any xml document conforms to this standard, we have some steps of validation, First is validation with xml against UBL 2.1 schema, second is validation with schematron against business rules defined in EN 16931. We tried to define and implement this in xproc and failed. Thats because, if a document would pass all validation steps, we are fine. But if not, the receiver wants to know what exactly went wrong. He needs a detailed error report for his records. This is true also in case of xml schema validaton errors, and that can't be done with either the current xproc spec since there is no way to report xml schema validation errors.
> Of course, xml schema validation errors would be reported in a proprietary format. Thats bad, but it is definitly better than nothing. Our validator software applies XSLT to the saxon-specific report format to generate something that is similar to SVRL. Same could be done for other XML validation processors.
> Sincerely,
> Frank Steimke
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 08:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 November 2018 08:46:49 UTC