[Nml-wg] Review of the XSD schema

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2013-01-17 13:17, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
> On 17-01-2013 12:07, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>
>>>>> * Where does it specify that all NML descriptions should start with
>>>>> nml:Topology as the root element?
>>>> It's not specified. No need.
>>> Should we put this in the document somewhere?
>> I don't think so. A subset of nml elements may be used be some
>> applications and I can imagine that nml:Topology is not needed.
> OK.
>
>
>>> Ok.... well, I guess this mostly proves that I am indeed not fluent in
>>> XSD. What I was trying to accomplish is to allow any order of child
>>> elements, and thought that xs:all did the trick.
>>>
>>> I actually was inspired by the answes to this post:
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2290360/xsd-how-to-allow-elements-in-any-order-any-number-of-times
> [...]
>
>>> Apparently, Xerces only supports XSD 1.0.
>> Yes (for validation I use StdInParse based on Xerces-C++).
> OK, let's use XSD 1.0.
>
> Apparently is no simple method to allow any order of child elements with
> XSD 1.0. Too bad! :(.
>
> (Feel free to read the above page, perhaps you find a different answer,
> but I can't see it, expect for one convoluted solution which I'm sure is
> not what we want).

The found issues/limitation while doing the schema irritated me a lot. 
I'll come back to it soon to find constructions I like.

>
>
>>> I'm curious to your solution. Did you push it to the git repository? I
>>> only see Jeroen's commit of Jan 15 there.
>> Now it should be there. Please, check it.
> Yes. thanks!
>
>
>>>> I keep idRef as we agreed to still support it (as an option; correct me
>>>> if I'm wrong).
>>> It is not mentioned in the document nor OWL schema.
>>>
>>> Do you propose to change these documents too, and explicitly allow idRef
>>> with the note that it should be regarded as completely equivalent to id?
>> Yes. I clearly remember that we agreed to keep it. We prefer to use id
>> but IdRef for references should be allowed as well.
> So keep both, noting that there is no difference between them and they
> can be used interchangeably without loss of meaning in NML 1.0?
>
> Note that RDF can not make a distinction between id and idRef (because
> it does not use either of them), so if we ever decide to give a
> different meaning between id and idRef, that can not be codified in RDF
> (which I think is bad).
>
> That said, I don't remember that we wanted to keep them
> (http://redmine.ogf.org/issues/50 says we "shelve it")
>
> But I rather add it now and move on instead of starting the discussion
> now. So let's add idRef to the document as completely equivalent to id,
> with the note that future versions may make a distinction.

Aaron, correct me if I'm wrong, you proposed to keep idRef as an 
alternative (we had a long discussion with no final decision and decided 
to leave it as is and come back to it later).

>
> Is that acceptable to all?

fine by me

Roman

>
> Freek