LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  March 2004

ZNG March 2004

Subject:

Re: SRW schema validation ??

From:

"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:05:35 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (251 lines)

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).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager