- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:55:27 +0000
- To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > The schema uses some xml constructs such as abstract elements and > substitution groups, just because we want to split the schema > in several files. No, also to give a defined place for third-party extensions to put their thing. If I am doing stianprov.xsd - how should I do it otherwise? Copy-paste everything from prov.xsd and redefine it? Do the abstract elements and substitution group cause say the JAXB generated classes to look horrible, or have lots of getAny() properties requiring casting etc? Perhaps we should have a go using it with the leading frameworks for Java (JaxB) and .NET (?) before we dismiss it. The XSD spec is after all 9 years old.. is this still something 'new' and 'dangerous'? > but define documentElements in the root file, defining the union over all > elements in all the files. > Same structure, but without abstract elements and substitution groups. This would be a bigger maintenance problem (more chance of getting it wrong somewhere), and would not work for third-party extensions. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 13:56:19 UTC