- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:04:40 -0400
- To: John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>
- Cc: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
John Kemp writes: > Can you simply describe (by listing specific technical items) what > would be needed to profile XSD 1.1 in order to create "XSD Lite"? Is > that what you are looking to do? Rick: I would also find it useful if you could outline what you see as the requirements and success criteria for such an XSD Lite profile. For example: * Is there a requirement that an XSD Lite implementation accept some subset of existing XSD 1.0 schemas. If so, for which user communities, etc.? * Are there a particular set of end-user use cases at which XSD Lite should be targeted, and briefly, how do those relate to the use cases for XSD 1.0 or XSD 1.1? By end-user use cases I mean, are there communities using XML for, say, network communication, document creation, etc. that you view as the ones who would use XSD Lite in preference to full XSD, RelaxNG, etc.? * Are there infrastructure-related use csaes or requirements that you have in mind? An example of such a use case might be: XSD Lite must be capable of integrating with Schematron in some particular way; XSD Lite must be usable in place of full XSD in conjunction with XQuery and XPath 2.0, at least for some purposes; etc. These are just examples, but one of the (good) reasons that people refactor and relayer specifications is to promote such modular reuse, and I'm wondering whether there are requirements of that sort for your proposed XSD Lite? I would find it easier to evaluate the pros and cons of particular proposals you make for a profile, such as not supporting explicit complexTypes in XSD Lite, if they could be evaluated against a set of goals and requirements. I think the above are the sorts of questions that should be addressed if a significant new effort is to be chartered. Most of the best W3C (and other) standards efforts I've seen have done a good job of stating use cases and requirements separately from proposed solutions. BTW: I wouldn't claim that XSD 1.0 did a particularly good job of this, but I think that with respect to most of the 1.1 enhancements that's been done at least reasonably well; interestingly, there are many many examples on the xmlschema-dev@w3.org in which some XSD user asked a question alont the lines of "I'm using XSD and I want to do XXX", where the answer is "That's difficult or impossible for XSD 1.0, but straightforward in XSD 1.1." I think that's at least good annecdotal evidence that at least some of the features in XSD 1.1 are urgently awaited by current users of XSD 1.0. Thank you. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 05/21/2009 10:31 AM To: ext Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: Re: XML Schema usage statistics (WAS: Draft minutes of 2009-05-12 TAG weekly) On May 21, 2009, at 10:17 AM, ext Rick Jelliffe wrote: [...] > > Sorry, but saying, > in effect, "we have no real metric for stopping adding features" is no > reason for not > having a profile: indeed, the bloated standards generated by that > approach surely must > need a profile in short measure. Can you simply describe (by listing specific technical items) what would be needed to profile XSD 1.1 in order to create "XSD Lite"? Is that what you are looking to do? Regards, - johnk
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 15:03:56 UTC