Response to NB2
Hi, thanks for the feedback and actually checking the schema.
Nick Bassiliades wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to congratulate the WG for a thorough and careful work > on defining a rule standard for the web. It is important that the > current standard is based on previous attempts, such as RuleML, so > that interoperability with existing systems/prototypes is maintained. > > Mostly, I would like to comment on the XML Schema for RIF-FLD (this may > be present on other RIF-related Schemata; I didn't check). > > Specifically, in the FLDSkyline.xsd file there are two lines: > > <xs:include schemaLocation="FLDBaseline.xsd"/> > <xs:redefine schemaLocation="FLDBaseline.xsd"> > > which actually should not co-exist, because xs:redefine implies that an > external schema file is included, but some of the definitions in there > are redefined. As a consequence, the above XML Schema file does not > validate in e.g. XMLSpy. Actually, only the redefine is needed.
Thanks for catching this bug. While it validated in XSV, there were warnings. We thus dropped the xs:include and merged the two xs:redefine's in v. 1.4 of FLDSkyline.xsd (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Skyline_Schema_Module).
> Furthermore, I would like to remark that currently the XML Schema > definitions for various elements are not opted for modularity and > extensibility. For example, the definition of the element "Implies" > encapsulates its complex data type, not allowing for redefinition by an > extension of FLD. > > For example, I'm working on a defeasible logic extension of RIF-FLD, > where I would like to add some attributes to indicate the rule type > (strict, defeasible, defeater). However, since the complexType of > "Implies" is not named, I cannot redefine it, including an attribute list. > > I believe that since RIF is supposed to be a family of languages, > extending one another, this extensibility should be taken into account > for the XML Schemata.
The current XML Schema started with two top-level modules (FLDBaseline.xsd and FLDSkyline.xsd). Further modularization, possibly including the fine-grained modularity you are proposing, is a topic of upcoming efforts.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:email@example.com> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
-The RIF WG