[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[Recent Entries]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?
- From: "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@gmail.com>
- To: <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>,"'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@m...>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:39:51 -0400
The real issue, I fear, is how many tools support it. Lots of folks would use it as long as the object shim next to the data is generated by someone else. Lots of folks would use it as soon as their front end processors does. Early last Fall (the last time I looked hard) there was minimal tooling, and less in the .NET space. tc "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker Toby Considine TC9, Inc TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee
| | Email: Toby.Considine@g... Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com |
From: Stephen D Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@g...] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM To: Costello, Roger L. Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction? Use Case: Use of XML Schema 1.1 to strongly type a .NET DataSet i.e. Whether code which previously used XML Schema 1.0 for strongly typed 'datasets' and supplemented that dataset with checks on co-constraints in handwritten code or in a combination of code and stored business rule logic in a database or a file - whether that code would benefit from a use of XML Schema 1.1 to associate the co-constraint business rules somehow with the strongly typed 'datasets'. Following on from Ken's message about the UBL use case, I must admit that in my use case above I tend to think the co-constraints are in many real situations going to benefit from being easier to change than if they were embedded in an XML Schema deep within the code. Putting such volatile things as co-constraint logic in such a relatively inaccessible place as an XML schema used to support the typing of a DataSet or similar structure does seem sub-optimal for your average business application.
On 14 August 2012 13:49, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@g...> wrote: As a C# / SQL Server developer by day and XML enthusiast by night I've witnessed a great synergy between XML Schema 1.0 and the database where tons of code can be circumvented with a schema-typed 'dataset' within the code and a corresponding database set of tables in the database. The missing piece was a way to add co-constraints with a similar reduction in the amount of code a so-armed web developer needed to write. At the moment it seems a developer still spends a lot of time writing code for business rules which actually amount to little more than coded co-constraints (co-constraints on the data in tables and corresponding data structures/types). It would seem to me a good progression toward less code and more agility to add co-constraints a la XML Schema 1.1 in .NET. In the meantime I'll carry on coding all those business rule co-constraints myself or dumping them into a table - keeps me in a job.
On 14 August 2012 13:22, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote: Hi Folks,
XML Schema 1.1 became a full recommendation on April 5, 2012.
Are organizations using it? Are you using it?
In my small world there hasn't been an overwhelming uptake of it. Perhaps that will change, however.
XML Schema 1.0 became a full recommendation on October 28, 2004.
So there has been eight years for organizations to spend a lot of time and money developing 1.0 schemas. In the process, those organizations discovered that 1.0 was lacking in certain capabilities (such as co-constraint checking) so they supplemented XSD 1.0 with Schematron.
Now, in 2012, organizations are well entrenched in their 1.0 XSDs plus their Schematron schemas. They have invested heavily in these technologies. And they have expertise in these technologies. And there is good support for these technologies.
What incentive do organizations have for moving to XML Schema 1.1?
There are some things provided by 1.1 that can't be accomplished using the combination of 1.0 plus Schematron. And 1.1 makes some things more convenient. Are they sufficient to justify switching?
Perhaps it would have been better for 1.1 to have provided radical new capabilities -- capabilities that totally cannot be obtained with the existing combination of 1.0 plus Schematron.
What do you think? Will XML Schema 1.1 be embraced by the XML community?
Or, will it be turned aside and organizations continue with the investments they have already made in 1.0 and Schematron?
Was the duration between 1.0 and 1.1 too long? In the eight year duration the world has changed. Have those changes impacted the usefulness of 1.1?
Would it be useful to create an XML Schema 1.2 that provides radical new capabilities? If yes, what radical new capabilities do you desire?
/Roger
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php |
[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
RSS 2.0 |
|
Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats,
enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.
|
Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website.
they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please
click here.
|
|