Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Seaborne [mailto:mseaborne@o...] > I would concur with Roland Merrick on this issue. The XForms model has > great > potential as a way of defining distributable business rule sets (whether > or > not you need a form). I started reviewing ver 1.1 of the specs after Roland's comments. It's my feeling that a language to express business rules deserves to be a first class citizen in the standards world. If the XForms workgroup considers expanding on their dynamic model (add rule grouping mechanisms, context-sensitive embedding in XSD, standardized error reporting ...etc) and branching out the effort into a separate standard that works equally well with XForms and with other standards, then that would be something wonderful. How about it W3C? > The nice thing is that it the declarative rules are > designed to layer over an existing XML schema language (W3C XML Schema). > So > the XForms model could be seen as XSD extensions I'll read more about this, but what I know so far is that XForms uses the XML Schema data types. Is there more to it? > I notice that you have already had a reply from Rick Jelliffe, mentioning > that Schematron is also a good fit for your requirements. You might want > to > look at the ISO DSDL activity that is working to allow combinations of > Relax > NG and Schematron schemas. In many ways the combination of XSD + XForms > Model mirrors Relax NG + Schematron. > So, if you think you can build on work that has already been done, or is > in > progress, or even feed requirements directly into those efforts, please > do. That's the general plan. If there is enough similarity and compatibility, convergence makes a lot of sense. I'll study this in more detail. Thanks Mark and Rick for the pointers. Regards, Waleed http://www.xrules.org
|
