- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:33:16 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
You are right, this old article shows 3 styles: http://www.xfront.com/ZeroOneOrManyNamespaces.html#redefine I guess one question is what we expect to happen if a client parses something according to "core.xsd", but starts finding say prov:collection stuff - is he meant to say that is invalid XML, ignore it, or treat it like other 'additional attributes'? Note that it is possible in a document to say which schema you have used using xsi:statements.. like: <core:document xmlns:core="http://www.example.org/core" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.org/core extension.xsd "> And a good parser would then check against that schema instead - but of course there could be network issues here. Another question is if it should be easy to combine multiple extensions.. I guess that could be desirable, but we probably don't want to make one master for each combination. (although we could do one master for 'core' and one for 'everything') On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > Following the teleconference, I did a little digging, and my understanding > is that it *is* possible to have a schema for a common target namerspace > build from a number of separate schema files: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#compound-schema > > By my reading, what you *cannot* do is have a single schema composed from > multiple "sub-schema" defining terms in different target namespaces. > > #g > -- > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 15:34:04 UTC