| TITLE: | Comment disposition of JTC 1/SC 34 N 363 CD Ballot for 19757-4 - DSDL Part 4 - Selection of Validation , London, 3–4 May 2003 |
| SOURCE: | SC34/WG1 |
| PROJECT: | 19757-4 - DSDL Part 4 |
| PROJECT EDITOR: | MURATA Makoto [FAMILY Given] |
| STATUS: | |
| ACTION: | Based on the comment disposition, Project Editors are requested to create a text for the FCD |
| DATE: | 7 May 2003 |
| DISTRIBUTION: | SC34 and Liaisons |
| REFER TO: | |
| SUPERSEDES: | |
| REPLY TO: | Dr. James David Mason (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 Chairman) Y-12 National Security Complex Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8208 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 865 574-6973 Facsimile: +1 865 574-18964 Network: masonjd@y12.doe.gov http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/ ftp://ftp.y12.doe.gov/pub/sgml/sc34/ Ms. Sara Hafele, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat American National Standards Institute 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 Tel: +1 212 642 4976 Fax: +1 212 840 2298 Email: shafele@ansi.org |
Accept in general. See the disposition of other comments.
Accept in principle, but note that the word "independent" is unclear.
It should be possible to use Part 4 without using part 10, and it should also be possible to use Part 4 from within Part 10.
Accept.
Note that patterns in RELAX NG can easily capture interdependencies between attributes and elements. If this feature is not sufficient, national member bodies are invited to provide use cases and raise this issue again.
Accept.
Accept (the same as in MNS).
Reject. The reserved mode #default captures this constraint. Moreover, the proposed mechanism is a special case of MNS's contexts.
Reject. Contexts are useful for handling closed schemas. However, add a note about concerns as follows:
Reject. Use "external".
Another option [JAPAN] is to keep foreign elements but prune their attributes and contents. We agreed that we introduce this option as well as "keep" and "prune".
However, we agreed not to introduce the option "depth-interleaved" for now, but add a note about this option. Although the option "depth-interleaved" is interesting, no schemas use it and no implementations support it as of now.
We agreed that we do not introduce the option "external". However, we agreed to add a note about this option.
Yet another option was suggested by Eric van der Vlist. This option copies the parent element of a validation candidate and attach the copied element as the root of the validation candidate. We agreed that we do not introduce this option but add a note about it.
For each option, the editor is instructed to add illustrative diagrams and notes about its advantages and disadvantages.
Reject. This mechanism is ad-hoc and cannot be generalized to attributes.
Accept.
Although this inheritance may capture some interdependencies of xml:base and attributes specifying relative URIs, we agreed not to introduce such inheritance in the FCD. First, there are quite a few inherited attributes that do not belong to the namespace for the prefix "xml". Thus, we do not know all of the attributes that should be copied. Second, it is always possible to create a monolithic schema which captures such interdependencies by not using Part 4.
National member bodies may raise this issue again in the next ballot, but are requested to provide motivating examples.
We also discussed XML Versions. Should each validation candidate "inherit" XML versions? We agreed that we do not introduce this "inheritance".
Accept.
Accept. But we agreed to create another schema in RELAX NG so that readers can compare the two descriptions.
Reject. As in RELAX NG, use a versioned namespace name.
Accept. As in RELAX NG, <include> merely merges the contents of two Part 4 schemas. Moreover, child <validate> or <validateAttributes> of <include> override those <validate> or <validateAttributes> in the referenced schema, when they specify the same namespace set and modes.
Accept. Add an element "schema" having a schema as its content.
Accept.
Accept in principle. However, if we allow infinite namespace sets and introduce a default schema that accepts anything, we might not need <lax> elements. The editor is instructed to compare these two approaches and create a proposal for this FCD.
We agreed to use file name extensions such as rnc, rng, dtd, xsd, and other extensions defined by the other parts of this standard.
We agreed to add a note about supplementary mechanisms such as media types, notations, and URIs.
Accept. However, block scoping of namespaces, as proposed in Namespace Switchboard, appear to have similar descriptive power. The editor is instructed to compare these two mechanisms and create a proposal for this FCD.
Add an editorial note and wait for feedback from users.
Use nameclasses of Part 2 as a basis. However, introduce some mechanism for representing not-mentioned namespaces easily. The editor is instructed to provide a complete text.
Add a note about: Do we want to specify "any namespace beginning with http://example.com/"?
Accept. Fortunately, we have a number of substantial inputs (MNS, Namespace Switchboard, etc.) and a DTR for RELAX Namespace. Based on them, the editor is instructed to provide a more complete draft.
Accept. Based on the disposition of the other comments, the project editor is instructed to make a non-simplistic FCD.
Please provide a motivating example. See the disposition of Japan-3.
We propose the use of the term "select".
We propose the use of the term "selections".
See the disposition of Japan-9.
Reject for now. This feature might belong to (A) each schema language, (B) Part 8 (Declarative Document Architecture), or (C) a simple program which converts a schema to another. In particular, qualified names in attribute values cannot be handled by Part 4.
See the deposition of Japan-4, Japan-7, and NamespaceSwitchboard-8.
Reject. If we provide a standard mechanism, we tie the hands of implementers by disallowing error handlers.
Note: Although lack of standard mechanisms for representing validation results may cause integration problems, we do not see any solutions.
It has been implicitly assumed that RELAX Namespace, the CD, and MNS can be implemented using a streaming algorithm without changing validators for other parts. The editor is instructed to make this assumption explicit in the FCD.
Accept. However, modes of MNS appear to have similar descriptive power. The editor is instructed to compare these two mechanisms and create a proposal for this FCD.
If two <validate> elements are from the same namespace (note. we are talking about "ns" but not "cover"), their modes have to be different. This constraint is needed since we do not want to have two schemas for a single namespace. ASK James.
We need to investigate a permanent URI. It should be derived from http://dsdl.org/part4/1.0/.... to give something like purl://dsdl.org/part4/......
Since an individual schema does not always cover the entire document, Part 4 may cause identifier collision between different validation candidates. It was agreed that this issue should be handled by path-based integrity constraints, rule-based integrity constraints, or application programs. However, the editor is instructed to add a note about the possibility of identifier collision.
DSDL Part 4: Selection of Validation Candidates
An acronym is DSDL-VC.
The editor is instructed to find appropriate names. UK suggested that "covers" is better than "cover". UK also suggested that "selections" and "select" are better than "rules" and "validate".