[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Schema validation question

• To: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Subject: Re: Schema validation question
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 18:30:10 -0400
• Cc: Linda Grimaldi <grimlinda@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton
• References: <3196691.1083705512298.JavaMail.root@f...> <40980AF6.F9803EED@b...> <409810C9.B61FD6A6@b...> <409818D5.8040804@k...>

Not quite, as the approach you propose below still uses data as metadata
(i.e. "APL" should be a data value, according to the original
requirement). 

The original requirement was: if the data associated with the node
<Fruit><Name> is "Apple", then the value of the sibling node
<Fruit><Abbrev> must be "APL". This means that the following XML
document fragment is considered valid:

<Fruit>
  <Name>Apple</Name>
  <Abbrev>APL</Abbrev>
</Fruit>

(NOTE: Now I'm getting hungry)

while the following is considered invalid:

<Fruit>
  <Name>Apple</Name>
  <Abbrev>ORG</Abbrev>
</Fruit>

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World

Robert Koberg wrote:
> 
> Couldn't you do:
> 
> <xs:complexType name="Fruit">
>    <xs:choice>
>      <xs:group ref="apple"/>
>      <xs:group ref="orange"/>
>    </xs:choice>
> </xs:complexType>
> 
> <xs:group name="apple">
>    <xs:element name="Apple" type="xs:string"/>
>    <xs:element name="APL" type="xs:token"/>
> </xs:group>
> 
> <xs:group name="orange">
>    <xs:element name="Orange" type="xs:string"/>
>    <xs:element name="ORG" type="xs:token"/>
> </xs:group>
> 
> Maybe I missed something?
> 
> best,
> -Rob
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> > I was also just reminded that this can also be done with RNG (I knew
> > there was another one!).
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joe Chiusano
> > Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> >
> > Joseph Chiusano wrote:
> >
> >>Using elements as data rather than metadata - very offensive indeed. ;)
> >>
> >>There is no solution for this with W3C Schema, but it can be done with
> >>Schematron.
> >>
> >>Kind Regards,
> >>Joe Chiusano
> >>Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> >>Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> >>
> >>Linda Grimaldi wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have been out of the XML world for a little while now, but someone just asked me a question and I have to admit, it's going to keep me up tonight if I can't come up with a better solution.  And I'm a little rusty, to boot...
> >>>
> >>>The issue is one of data dependency and validation.  The goal is to enforce a restriction on pairs of data values- if the data associated with the node <Fruit><Name> is "Apple", then the value of the sibling node <Fruit><Abbrev> must be "APL".  Effectively, the goal is to enforce a specific mapping from one enum into another within an XML document. The only way my associate could figure to capture this dependency is as follows:
> >>>
> >>><xs:complexType name="Fruit">
> >>>        <xs:annotation>
> >>>                <xs:documentation>Defines the valid values for fruit types</xs:documentation>
> >>>        </xs:annotation>
> >>>        <xs:choice>
> >>>                <xs:element name="APL" type="xs:token" fixed="Apple"/>
> >>>                <xs:element name="ORG" type="xs:token" fixed="Orange"/>
> >>>                <xs:element name="BAN" type="xs:token" fixed="Banana"/>
> >>>                <xs:element name="LEM" type="xs:token" fixed="Lemon"/>
> >>>                <xs:element name="GRP" type="xs:token" fixed="Grape"/>
> >>>        </xs:choice>
> >>></xs:complexType>
> >>>
> >>>All in all, this strikes me as a very ugly, even offensive, solution.  My initial response was to forget about the validation- it wasn't worth it.  Is there a way to preserve the data dependency validation without warping the instance document as the above schema fragment would require?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Linda
> >>>
> 
> >

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Schema validation question
    • From: "Bryce K. Nielsen" <bryce@s...>

• References:
  • Schema validation question
    • From: Linda Grimaldi <grimlinda@e...>
  • Re: Schema validation question
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Re: Schema validation question
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Re: Schema validation question
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema validation question
• Next by Date: RE: You call that a standard?
• Previous by thread: Re: Schema validation question
• Next by thread: Re: Schema validation question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread