Re: Schematron for meps

Youenn/Paul/All Gurus,

Missed this email by a few days ! Thanks for bringing this up. I have
quickly updated the schematron with around 12 assertions from my end, and am
attaching it with this email.

Overall, I had a few concerns.I am not sure how we can use Schematron when
you have document import/include scenarios, and you have components that are
defined within nested "includes". Also validating cross referenced
QNames/components [that cd be defined in different XML documents] is
something I do not know.
The only way I cd think of is through usage of custom XPath functions to be
used within the schematron that enable this kind of a resolution. This is
just an very early thought I have. Please pardon my ignorance if I am wrong.

I have referred to a few of these custom xpath functions within the sch file
attached.
For instance, I wd assume the usage of functions like
custom:resolveBinding(QName) that returns a binding node within a specified
QName in the current and all imported/included documents.
So, generically, we wd have functions like custom:resolve<Component>(QName
of component) that returns a node corresponding to the component in the
model that has the specified QName.

Similarly, we also need a custom functions on the lines of the XSLT function
document() that is capable of building a document that includes all the
"included" documents in the main document.

But I am not sure what it means to refer to these custom functions in a
normative schematron for WSDL. If it makes sense, great! and Merry
Christmas, or else well, Merry Christmas :-)
Do let me know your thoughts on this.

rgds,
Ram

On 12/20/06, paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Please find in attachment an attempt to capture some constraints
> > relating the mep of an operation with its message children.
> > These constraints are written as schematron assertions. This may ease
> > the authoring of WSDL documents.
>
> cool!
>
> > Paul, with all the good work you have done on the XML data binding WG, I
> > would be grateful if you could have a quick look at it.
>
> Er, OK. Bah, my webmail now blocks .xml as a dangerous attachment?!
>
> Looks at:
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/att-0076/meprules.xml
>
> Seems sound -
>
> I prefer to "assert" constraints and "report" interesting
> valid content, but that's a style thing.
>
> I wonder how many other constraints we can express in such as
> schema, are we planning to make this schema normative to live
> alongside the XML Schema?
>
> We could embed such co-constraints into the normative XML Schema,
> but I much prefer to keep XPaths out of XML Schema documents
> as a "separation of concerns".
>
> Paul
>
>


-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor