- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:43:17 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > I don't see the prov xml schema as the way to fully validate a provenance > trace, but only a way of checking the prov core and the prov extensions defined by > the WG. I agree. We should be happy with the PROV-DM being somewhat correctly represented in PROV-XML - semantically checking if it makes sense is obviously out of scope for the schema. It is however true that XML schemas are (at least in industries not caught up with the REST/JSON/RDF hype!) used as building blocks for code generation, making WSDL services and defining exchanges between legal entities, and it would be sad if our schema(s) could not be used as a good starting point for developing more custom schemas by third-party extensions. Therefore I don't think we should treat our extensions any more special than third-party extensions, beyond reusing the same namespace (which we know is requested) and providing the helpful all-inclusive XSD. Do you plan to counter Stephan's current solution with an alternative? If so I think we should take it to a vote on Thursday. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 16:44:04 UTC