RE: ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial

Yes, that looks great to me, except for another typo I made in my email 
that you missed:

When you want to optimize something like business rules for a 
particular document type, or for a major subsection of a document, than I 
think   ->  THEN I think

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
07/20/2009 07:37 PM
 
        To:     "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial


 
Thanks again Noah.

I recast the slide as illustrating different use cases (and corrected my 
mistake of "assertions on elements").

Please let me know if this is reasonable (slide 28):

http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt

/Roger


> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:20 PM
> To: Costello, Roger L.
> Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> 
> Thank you for taking these concerns to heart.
> 
> p 28: Well, it's all up to you, but I still think you are 
> conflating types 
> with elements on slide 28, and in a tutorial that seems 
> unfortunate.  My 
> mail showed an example with two elements, <width> and 
> <height>.   Also, I 
> think calling it "two schools of thought" is a bit misleading 
> and sets up 
> unnecessary controversy.  I think there are tradeoffs and 
> different use 
> cases.  When you want to optimize something like business rules for a 
> particular document type, or for a major subsection of a 
> document, than I 
> think putting the assertions on the type of the document root 
> or the root 
> element of the subtree makes sense.  In general, when you 
> want to have 
> reusable types, then it is appropriate to include in those types 
> assertions appropriate to the correct use of that type, 
> insofar as XSD 1.1 
> can express them.  Those aren't so much conflicting philosophies as 
> differing use cases, IMO.
> 
> p 232: there's a typo, perhaps carried from my original: 
> "BigDecimal or 
> similar type " -> "BigDecimal or similar types "
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Noah
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
> Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> 07/18/2009 07:45 AM
> 
>         To:     "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        RE: ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Noah!
> 
> Excellent suggestions. I've incorporated them (see slide 28 and slide 
> 232):
> 
> http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt
> 
> /Roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
> [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:53 PM
> > To: Costello, Roger L.
> > Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> > 
> > Roger: overall, I think this is excellent.  A very impressive 
> > piece of 
> > work.  One disagreement and one suggestion:
> > 
> > * Disagreement: 
> > 
> > You suggest: 
> > 
> > "Due to the restrictions on what the XPath can reference, I 
> > recommend all 
> > assertions be placed on the document's root element. "
> > 
> > First of all, assertions go on types, not elements, but 
> > that's not my main 
> > concern as your intention is clear.  I just think this is not 
> > in general 
> > good advice, because it undermines the value of assertions on 
> > types that 
> > are usable across documents.  Let's say I have some type, 
> > perhaps for a 
> > measurement that was taken repeatedly.  An element of that 
> > type might look 
> > like:
> > 
> >         <width minMeasurement="3.02"  maxMeasurement="3.06" 
> > meanMeasurement="3.04" />
> > 
> > or, in the same document:
> > 
> >         <height minMeasurement="4.3"  maxMeasurement="5.2" 
> > meanMeasurement="4.8" />
> > 
> > Let's assume these elements are both of complexType measurementType.
> > 
> > Very possibly, I'd want to <assert> that minMeasurement <= 
> > meanMeasurement 
> > <= maxMeasurement.  Why would I want to do that at the 
> > document level? 
> > Presumably, measurements like this could be used in lots of 
> > documents and 
> > on lots of differently named elements.  For this case, the 
> assertion 
> > belongs on measurementType, I think.  The same might well be 
> > true of an 
> > address type, which could check that the first two digits of 
> > a zip code 
> > are consistent with the name of the state.  Indeed, there are 
> > many, many 
> > common examples in which you don't want to hoist assertions 
> > to the root, 
> > IMO.  Reuse of these things is important!
> > 
> > * Suggestion:  in your discussion of precisionDecimal, you 
> > might indicate 
> > that one of the reasons it has been added is that it embodies 
> > XML support 
> > for the recently adopted IEEE 754-2008 standard for floating point 
> > decimal.  Java BigDecimal or similar type in other 
> > programming languages 
> > are examples of implementations of IEEE 754-2008, just as 
> > Java double and 
> > float are implementations if IEEE 754 floating point binary. 
> >  The new XSD 
> > precisionDecimal type supports the use case where you have 
> > data in your 
> > program that is represented using such a type, and want to 
> > serialize it 
> > and validate in in XML, while preserving the 754-2008 
> semantics (e.g. 
> > precision matters).
> > 
> > Noah
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn 
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
> > Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
> > 07/17/2009 01:37 PM
> > 
> >         To:     "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> >         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> >         Subject:        ANN: XML Schema 1.1 Tutorial
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > I created a tutorial on XML Schema 1.1:
> > 
> > http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema-1-1/xml-schema-1-1.ppt
> > 
> > 
> > I am announcing it here before announcing it on xml-dev.
> > 
> > I am eager to get your feedback on:
> > 
> > 1. Are there any mistakes in it?
> > 
> > 2. Is it clear? Is it easy to understand?
> > 
> > 3. Have I missed any of the new functionality?
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to especially thank Michael Kay and Michael 
> > Sperberg-McQueen 
> > for their patience in answering my endless questions.
> > 
> > /Roger
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 00:03:03 UTC