Print

Print


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).
> >
> >
> 
>