Yes, that's a known bug which came up a little while ago. It is fixed in
the drafts http://samantha.oucs.ox.ac.uk:8080/srw1-1/ (XML Spy regarded
an extension of all as legal but it turns out it isn't!).
I'm afraid it is still pending on me to review the drafts at
http://samantha.oucs.ox.ac.uk:8080/srw1-1/, write up the changes and get
Ray to update the ones on LoC (the last either weeks have been somewhat
hectic.)
Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:01 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Schema issues
>
> Futher to my comment about not being ready for
> standardisation, see below
> message forwarded from Tom Habing at UIUC.
>
> (Summary: MSXML says our schema is fubar, and another
> validator does the
> wrong thing)
>
> Matthew, any comments?
>
> Rob
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:18:42 -0500
> From: Thomas G. Habing <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OAI-PMH registry and ZeeRex
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Sorry its taken me so long to get around to this. However,
> in looking at this
> fix I seem to have discovered a potential problem with SRW XML Schema:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/srw/srw-types.xsd
>
> Being a good XMLer :-) I always try to validate my files
> against the relevant
> schemas. My tools of choice are usually the Microsoft XML
> toolkit (MSXML 4.0)
> and the XSV validator from
> http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/xsv-status.html.
>
> The MS toolkit complains that the XML Schema is not valid,
> and XSV does not
> give the expected result.
>
> The XML Schema fragments relevant to your explainResponse are these:
>
> <xsd:complexType name="responseType">
> <xsd:all>
> <xsd:element ref="version"/>
> <xsd:element ref="diagnostics" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="extraResponseData" minOccurs="0"/>
> </xsd:all>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> <xsd:complexType name="explainResponseType">
> <xsd:complexContent>
> <xsd:extension base="responseType">
> <xsd:all>
> <xsd:element ref="record"/>
> <xsd:element ref="echoedExplainRequest" minOccurs="0"/>
> </xsd:all>
> </xsd:extension>
> </xsd:complexContent>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> Assuming that these are valid (see the following), to me this
> indicates that an
> <explainResponse> must contain at least a <version> and a
> <record>, along with
> some optional stuff including <diagnostics>. Therefore, I
> was surprised when
> the XSV validator didn't complain about your original
> suggested correction
> above, because it didn't contain either a version or record
> element. Then I
> tried validating it using the MS XML toolkit which complained
> that the XML
> Schema itself was not valid. When I looked up the error
> message returned by MS
> XML, I got this web page
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q316635 which
> essentially explains that using <xsd:all> inside of an
> <xsd:extension> is not
> legal.
>
> Presumably, the developers of this schema have done some
> testing with various
> validators, so I would be willing to accept that Microsoft's
> interpretation of
> the schema spec is wrong, but it is also curious that the XSV
> validator, while
> it doesn't complain of an error is unable to correctly
> validate against the
> schema.
>
> My suggestions would be to avoid using extensions of all
> groups, such that the
> explain response becomes:
>
>
> <xsd:complexType name="explainResponseType">
> <xsd:all>
> <xsd:element ref="version"/>
> <xsd:element ref="diagnostics" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="extraResponseData" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="record" minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element ref="echoedExplainRequest" minOccurs="0"/>
> </xsd:all>
> </xsd:complexType>
>
> Assuming that the record really should be an optional
> element. The other "all
> extensions" could be modified similarly.
>
> In any case, I've made your suggested correction, ignoring
> the fact that I
> can't get it to validate with the current schema.
>
> Kind regards,
> Tom
>
>
|