Re: Schematron for meps

Ram,

We are using another XML format for component model interchange [1]  in 
our test suite. This resolves all the import/includes and puts everything 
in one file. That is where component level schematron assertions can be 
tested. Look at the schemas [2]. Here's an example [3]. Look for *.wsdlcm 
in the test-suite/results directory for other examples.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/index.html
[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb//2002/ws/desc/test-suite/interchange/
[3] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results/Baseline/Chameleon-1G/getBalance.canonical.wsdlcm?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plain

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
12/22/2006 10:09 PM

To
"paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>, "Youenn Fablet" 
<youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
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 [attachment "meprules.sch" deleted by Arthur 
Ryman/Toronto/IBM]