- From: Hua, Hook (388C) <hook.hua@jpl.nasa.gov>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:12:18 +0000
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
If we use a custom identifier type to support more "scruffy" provenance, we may have to rely on validation approaches other than XSD-based validation. For example, Schematron [1] is a rule-based validation approach that can validate prov-xml traces with conditionals such as existence and uniques. It also allows the expression of element dependencies in the constraints--something XSD validation does not support. Note that Schematron is also an ISO/IEC 19757 standard for Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL), Part 3: Rule-based validation. However, I think it may be better to stick with more traditional (and limited) XSD-based validation as that is more mainstream in implementations. So in a sense, it constrains what we really want to mean as "scruffy". Also, I've updated our PROV-XML identifiers analysis page http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers with some updates and additional overall analysis. --Hook [1] http://www.schematron.com/ On 1/29/13 9:10 AM, "Stephan Zednik" <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: >Thanks for the response Luc, > >The question of whether we want the xml validator to check the validity >of the prefix only really came to me when we were doing the analysis and >should be discussed by the group. > >My opinion is that a well-formed identifier should be required for >"scruffy" provenance; I would prefer to not have to fall back to a >constraints implementation to test if an identifier value is well-formed. > > >To me this means that an xml validation of the schema should check the >well-formedness of the identifier because validated prov-xml should be >considered valid "scruffy" provenance. I do not know if the group has >formally made an decisions about the relationship between xml schema >validated prov-xml and validated "scruffy" provenance. In the case of >prefixed identifier values I think checking that the prefix is defined is >integral to checking if the identifier is well-formed. I would like to >hear the group's thoughts on this. > >I would like to add to this week's agenda a quick discussion on whether >the xml schema should check the well-formedness of the prov:id value and >if testing the validity of a prefix is a requirement for checking the >well-formedness of a prefixed identifier value. > >--Stephan > >On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Stephan, >> >> If we didn't require the xml validator to check a prefix is properly >>declared, then >> we could define a grammar for qualified names. >> But if we require the xml validator to check the validity of a prefix, >>then, I agree >> with your analysis. >> >> Luc >> >> On 24/01/2013 18:43, Stephan Zednik wrote: >>> I have updated the wiki page on XML Identifiers >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Prov-XML_Identifiers >>> >>> with additional advantages and disadvantages on using QName and anyURI >>> >>> I have also added my personal opinion on the options in the Analysis >>>section. >>> >>> --Stephan >>> >>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 1:28 PM, James Cheney<jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> At the last face-to-face meeting I agreed to check with Henry >>>>Thompson about this. I thought there was a tracked action about this >>>>but there doesn't seem to be. In any case, I asked Henry and he said >>>>he'd try to look at it this week. >>>> >>>> --James >>>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-553: QNames are too restrictive as identifiers [XML >>>>>Serialization] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/553 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: XML Serialization >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The current schema uses xsd:QName for identifiers. >>>>> >>>>> As a result, the following identifier is not allowed: >>>>> >>>>> <prov:activity prov:id="pc1:00000p1"> >>>>> <prov:label>align_warp 1</prov:label> >>>>> </prov:activity> >>>>> >>>>> An xml schema validator would complain with: >>>>> >>>>> 'pc1:00000p1' is not a valid value for 'QName' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solution: allow for prov:QualifiedName (as defined in prov-n). >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:14:28 UTC