Re: review of prov-xml

Hi Curt

I don't know what causes these unprefixed  QNames to validate: the way the schema is structured, the way xml validation woks, or even some issue in xmlint. 
It can be resolved by adding prefixes to these local names.

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 27 Feb 2013, at 16:46, "Curt Tilmes" <> wrote:

> On 02/27/2013 03:18 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>> On 27/02/13 07:56, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>> The examples from the note should be identical to, or very very
>>> similar to, the xml examples in
>>> examples/eg-40-xml-examples-by-terms/xml.  All the xml examples in
>>> eg-40 currently validate using xmllint.  You can run make in this
>>> directory to run the validation tests.
>> I don't understand how they validate. For instance, example 23:
>> line-management example has no prefix, but no default prefix
>> defined.  I now realise prov:ref="a" suffers from the same
>> problem. This occurs in several examples.
> Note that we cheated.  We validate against an example test XSD
> instead of directly against prov.xsd:
> Do you suggest changing this approach, this schema, or the examples?
> Is there anything in ex.xsd you disagree with?
> Curt

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 17:47:52 UTC