Response to WL1
Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Assuming that much of the software for processing XML in the RIF > sublanguages will be written in Java, it is highly probable that > much of this will be done using JAXB, the "Java Architecture for > XML Binding". Sun's Java 1.6 comes bundled with an XML Schema > compiler. I have investigated the XML schema for the RIF Condition > Language.
Thanks much for doing this analysis.
> The schema as given in the "RIF Basic Working Draft 30 July 2008" compiles > into 33 Java classes. Using a different approach, essentially the same > XML definition can be expressed in an XML schema which compiles into > only about 20 Java classes.
It would be instructive if you could share this with us at some point.
> The current XML schema does not try to exploit inheritance by XML type > extension. (This would be possible for IRIMetaType as a base type.)
We do use some other kind of inheritance, though.
> Using the xsd:choice construct results in class definitions with several > fields where only one is used (example: Formula). Such objects are > awkward and, potentially, error prone.
Isn't that an issue with JAXB, and not really something RIF should solve? After all, xs:choice is a fundamental part of XML Schema.
> It would be preferable to use explicit complexType and simpleType > definitions (rather than inlined types) as this makes it possible to reuse > the same type for differently tagged elements.
Our intent was to keep most things explicit. We seem to have ended up with some inlined types. (Perhaps just within groups?)
> If it is a concern of the working group to formulate an XML schema > which simplifies its usage for Java programmers then a rework of the > schema definition should be considered. I'd be glad to contribute my > work towards an alternate version.
An unofficial JAXB-friendly version of the XSDs is always possible, of course.