i)
It's a nice idea, but not important. It'll take me five minutes to
cut-and-paste some code.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew J. Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SRW schema validation ??
>
>
> Possibly - time is tight this week so I'd prefer to spend it
> on getting
> a fix up before the weekend.
>
> The main solution is to change the xsd:all's to xsd:sequences - this
> will fix the order of parameters in SRW (but most implementations I
> believe are following the order in the specification)
>
> However that leaves the issue of the base (abstract) requestType and
> responseType (the actualy searchRetreiveRequest etc. are extensions of
> these)
>
> i) we drop these base types entirely (it was a nice idea, but not
> essential) - this may break some of Ralph's code
> ii) we keep them as is (including the parameters which are defined in
> the current base schemas - i.e. version, stylesheet, extraRequestData
> for the requestType and version, diagnostics, and extraResponseData in
> the responseType). This, however, has the result I had used xsd:all to
> avoid, i.e. the order of parameters must now have version, stylesheet,
> extraRequestData first (which in turn requires a change to the
> specification document, and will break most if not all SRW
> implementations!)
> iii) we keep these base types but they only define the
> version parameter
> (extra...Data etc. going into the specific types).
>
> My preference is iii, followed by i.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:51 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: SRW schema validation ??
> >
> > I want to put up a page called something like "known problems we're
> > working on" with a link from the home page. Matthew could you write
> > this problem up, including a description of the plan for fixing it
> > (including timeframe)?
> > Thanks.
> > --Ray
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: SRW schema validation ??
> >
> >
> > I've been using XMLSpy to validate the schemas plus trying
> them in the
> > Axis and .Net SOAP toolkits!
> >
> > It does appear that this is a problem with the schema though. I
> > switched
> > from xsd:sequence to xsd:all to accommodate a request from
> Ralph for a
> > base request and response types. Using all, I'd hoped to
> avoid having
> > to
> > change any implied order to the parameters listed in the
> specification
> > document (see Ralph's e-mail of the 23 Jan "Based Message Type", and
> > mine of the 26 Jan "Re: Review of 1.1"). I did ask at the time "I've
> > changed this to xsd:all i.e. order is no longer important - this may
> > break things (I've checked that Axis can cope), so
> comments/reactions
> > please!!" but got no reactions or comments (or at least didn't spot
> > any!)
> >
> > XMLSpy and the other tools I was using seemed happy with this
> > approach,
> > but it appears this is wrong see
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2002Oct/0156.html
> >
> > Sorry, Ray, I'll have to post another update to the schema.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > On Behalf Of Marc Cromme
> > > Sent: 17 March 2004 15:02
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: SRW schema validation ??
> > >
> > > Hi folks -
> > > I am working on an SRW server implementation in PHP4 I have
> > > great troubles trying to validate my own 'explainResponses'
> > > against the SRW schema
> > >
> > > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd
> > >
> > > My srw:explainResponse starts out something like this;
> > >
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > <srw:explainResponse
> > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> > > xmlns:srw="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/"
> > > xmlns:diag="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/diagnostic/"
> > > xmlns:xcql="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/xcql/"
> > > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/
> > > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd">
> > > <srw:version>1.1</srw:version>
> > > <srw:record>
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried quite a few xml-schema validators, and they complain
> > > about the scheme as such.
> > >
> > > Now what ??
> > >
> > > Which tools do you use to make sure that the xml output from
> > > your reference implementations are correct in schemas ???
> > >
> > > Some hints to good tools to use?
> > >
> > > Or some hints where the error in the scheme might be ??
> > >
> > >
> > > DETAILS:
> > >
> > > XMLLINT: seems to be a bug in xmmlint, gives very
> confusiong errors
> > >
> > >
> > > PPARSE (Xerces)
> > >
> > > PParse -n -s -f tmp/explain.sru.tmp
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 26, char 41
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 43, char 42
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 58, char 41
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 70, char 42
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 81, char 41
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > >
> > > Error at file
> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd,
> > > line 91, char 42
> > > Message: An 'all' model group that's part of a complex type
> > > definition must constitute the entire content type of the
> definition
> > > tmp/explain.sru.tmp: 1395 ms (73 elems, 55 attrs, 18 spaces,
> > > 874 chars)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > GOTDOTNET
> > > http://apps.gotdotnet.com/xmltools/xsdvalidator/Default.aspx
> > >
> > > (only trying to validate the schema as such)
> > >
> > >
> > > Cannot resolve schemaLocation attribute. An error occurred at
> > > , (7, 4).
> > > Cannot resolve schemaLocation attribute. An error occurred at
> > > , (8, 4).
> > > 'all' is not the only particle in a group or being used as an
> > > extension.
> > > An error occurred at , (10, 6). 'all' is not the only
> > > particle in a group or being used as an extension. An error
> > > occurred at , (17, 6).
> > > 'all' is not the only particle in a group or being used as an
> > > extension.
> > > An error occurred at , (71, 10). The derived type and the
> > > base type must have the same content type. An error occurred
> > > at , (68, 4). 'all' is not the only particle in a group or
> > > being used as an extension. An error occurred at , (17, 6).
> > > 'all' is not the only particle in a group or being used as an
> > > extension. An error occurred at , (92, 10). The derived type
> > > and the base type must have the same content type. An error
> > > occurred at , (89, 4). 'all' is not the only particle in a
> > > group or being used as an extension. An error occurred at ,
> > > (10, 6). 'all' is not the only particle in a group or being
> > > used as an extension. An error occurred at , (27, 10). The
> > > derived type and the base type must have the same content
> > > type. An error occurred at , (24, 4). 'all' is not the only
> > > particle in a group or being used as an extension. An error
> > > occurred at , (17, 6). 'all' is not the only particle in a
> > > group or being used as an extension. An error occurred at ,
> > > (44, 10). The derived type and the base type must have the
> > > same content type. An error occurred at , (41, 4). 'all' is
> > > not the only particle in a group or being used as an
> > > extension. An error occurred at , (10, 6). 'all' is not the
> > > only particle in a group or being used as an extension. An
> > > error occurred at , (59, 10). The derived type and the base
> > > type must have the same content type. An error occurred at ,
> > > (56, 4). Type 'http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/xcql/:operandType'
> > > is not declared. An error occurred at , (145, 12). Type
> > > 'http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/xcql/:searchClauseType' is not
> > > declared. An error occurred at , (209, 12). The
> > > 'http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/diagnostic/:diagnostic' element
> > > is not declared. An error occurred at , (136, 8).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
|