Thanks to Mulberry and their Balisage conference
last month, I discuss in this paper the UBL
approach of publishing a comprehensive schema
expecting users to create a subset schema:
http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol22/html/Holman01/BalisageVol22-Holman01.html
In particular around figure 9 I discuss the idea
that subset schemas are good for generation of
XML but not for consumption if one wishes to be
more interoperable with XML from other subsets.
I hope this is helpful.
. . . . . Ken
At 2018-08-15 17:25 -0400, John Dziurlaj wrote:
>I am working with a schema that is purposely lax
>(i.e. it may allow too many occurrences, may
>contain irrelevant elements, etc.) so that it
>can handle a broad range of customer scenarios.
>I now have a customer that wants to constrain
>the schema such that only a subset of the
>functionality is available. This subset is
>expected to validate against its larger parent.
>Iâve come up with a number of different approaches to handle this:
>Â
> * Subset schema using available XML tooling.
> A standalone derivative will be produced.
> * Create a new schema, referencing the old
> one, but derive all the types by restriction.
> * Use XML Assertions
> * Use Schematron
> * Use CAMV
>Â
>My preference is to use a XML Schema native
>approach (1-3), using XSD 1.0 only constructs if
>possible (1-2), as the actual used XML processor
>that gets used is outside my control.
>Â
>Does anyone have ideas on a good approach?
>Â
>John Dziurlaj
>Â
>Elections Consultant
>Hilton Roscoe LLC
>Cell 330-714-8935 Work/Fax 234-706-6434
>Â
--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |
