[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatib
Hi Tom, A colleague just sent me something that I find helpful: A client may perform the following steps on the data it retrieves from a web service: 1. Validate you get what you expect 2. Understand what you get 3. Use what you get A web service may make the following artifacts available to clients to assist them with "validating that they get what they expect": (a) A grammar-based schema for validating that the retrieved data contains the expected tags and they are arranged in the expected order. (b) A rule-based schema for validating that the relationships of the data are as expected (co-constraints, cardinality constraints, and algorithmic constraints are fulfilled). The technologies for these artifacts are: (a) XML Schema, RELAX NG, DTD (b) Schematron [To tie this back to an earlier email, I assert that these "validation artifacts" are one thing and a "versioning strategy" is another, and the two should be separate.] A web service may also make artifacts available to clients to assist them with "understanding what they get": (a) A document (or documents) to help clients understand the data they retrieve There are many technologies to achieve this, including prose (i.e. create a web page that client developers can read), data dictionary, RDF/S, OWL. /Roger -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@e...] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 9:30 PM To: Costello, Roger L. Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: RE: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibility as a versioning strategy for data exchange Costello, Roger L. wrote: > I think that for a client to be able to utilize a web service, the web > service must specify three things: > > (1) Syntax of the data that the web service makes available to clients; > use a grammar-based language such as XML Schemas, or RELAX NG, or DTD. > > Ok. > (2) Relationship constraints (e.g. co-constraints) on the data; use > Schematron. > > Seems a bit arbitrary. Why "relationship constraints" of that particular form? What's your theory, here? Your claim wasn't that Schematron can be useful but that "[in order] for a client to be able to utilize a web service [....]" which is a remarkably strong claim. > (3) Semantics of the data; use a data dictionary, or English prose, or > RDF/S, or OWL, some combination thereof. > > Again, what's your theory? Some notation that usefully indicates semantics seems a good idea, I grant you. Obviously, also, service has to be documented somewhere. How did you get from there to "English prose, RDF/S, or OWL, some combination thereof"? (2) and (3) suggest investments, presumably with some return. They also suggest suggestions competitive with a lot of well developed theory in program typing and in modeling the semantics of programs. So, why are the technologies and approaches you suggest the right choice here? -t
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|