- From: G. Ken Holman <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:18:24 +0200
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
At 2012-10-16 15:13 -0700, Fred Li wrote: >Hi XML experts, > >I have a problem about the use of order indicators in the creation of >XML schema (.xsd file). As I learned from W3School >(http://www.w3schools.com/schema/schema_complex_indicators.asp), we >have 3 order indicators in the XML Schema language: > >All - the child elements can appear in any order, and each child >element must occur only once >Choice - either one child element or another can occur >Sequence - the child elements must appear in a specific order > >I have an element (for example <asset>) that has 23 child elements, >three of them can have more than 1 instances, and 7 of them are >required (includes the 3 have more than 1 instances). According to the >definition of the order indicators, "sequence" is the only indicator I >can use in the XML schema, but I hope there is no order restriction >for the appearance of 23 child elements. Do you have any ideas to >solve this problem? Theoretically, you could choose to express every possible permutation in a big choice, but it would be untenable to develop and to maintain. I think in W3C Schema 1.0 this is the only way. Using W3C Schema 1.1 I think you could just allow any number of all of them and then assert the cardinality of the ones that have restrictions: <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:element ref="a"/> <xs:element ref="b"/> <xs:element ref="c"/> <xs:element ref="d"/> <xs:element ref="e"/> <xs:element ref="f"/> <xs:element ref="g"/> <xs:element ref="h"/> <xs:element ref="i"/> <xs:element ref="j"/> <xs:element ref="k"/> <xs:element ref="l"/> <xs:element ref="m"/> <xs:element ref="n"/> <xs:element ref="o"/> <xs:element ref="p"/> <xs:element ref="q"/> <xs:element ref="r"/> <xs:element ref="s"/> <xs:element ref="t"/> <xs:element ref="u"/> <xs:element ref="v"/> <xs:element ref="w"/> <xs:assert test=" count(a) > 1 and count(a) < 4 and count(b) > 1 and count(b) < 4 and count(c) > 1 and count(c) < 4 and count(d) = 1 and count(e) = 1 and count(f) = 1 and count(g) = 1 and count(h) < 2 and count(i) < 2 and count(j) < 2 and count(k) < 2 and count(l) < 2 and count(m) < 2 and count(n) < 2 and count(o) < 2 and count(p) < 2 and count(q) < 2 and count(r) < 2 and count(s) < 2 and count(t) < 2 and count(u) < 2 and count(v) < 2 and count(w) < 2"/> </xs:choice> An alternative answer is not to use W3C Schema and to use the "interleave" modeling semantic in ISO/IEC 19757-2 RELAX-NG where you can express the following in the compact syntax: ( a & a? & a? & b & b? & b? & c & c? & c? & d & e & f & g & h? & i? & j? & k? & l? & m? & n? & o? & p? & q? & r? & s? & t? & u? & v? & w? ) You can see that the end result requires one of a through g (the 7 required constructs), up to 3 of each of a, b and c, and the rest are all optional. The interleave allows them to show up in any order at all. I hope this helps. . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:25:37 UTC