- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:46:23 +0000
- To: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>
- CC: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
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" <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov> 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: > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/35385cbbfb9f/examples/eg-40-xml-examples-by-term/xml/ex.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