- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:25:47 +0100
- To: "'Dieter Menne'" <dieter.menne@menne-biomed.de>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> It is A, and Michael and Steve's as well as some of your > ideas are exactly to the point. We would like to keep one > master document that is the most liberal and has only the > minimal set as required items; and separate derived ones; > there are a few more variants than those mentioned here, most > of them "nested" to form a stack of requirements (the patient > case is the only non-nested). > > The idea is that hospital administrators can put up a filter > allowing only anonymized files out. Or that researcher who > want calibrations information that is not relevant for others > can check with their special version of the schema if all > required items are there. > > While Michael's $param idea looked easiest for me at first, I > think Steve has made a good point and that his way is > preferred because is ensures that the master document is always valid. > I've actually been experimenting with ideas that take the "conditional type assignment" facility in XSD 1.1 and extend it by allowing access to "schema parameters" which must be set when starting a validation episode (the current facility can only be driven by data that appears in the instance document, not by external data supplied at validation time). This approach seems to offer a very good fit to your use case (which I think is not at all uncommon). Unfortunately the schema specs move slowly. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 08:26:26 UTC