pah at jb.man.ac.uk
Fri Jun 25 08:11:49 PDT 2004
I think that this is at least one argument for defining *some* global
elements in these schema (particularly the top level ones) - whilst I
think that it was a good refactoring to remove the global element
definitions for every type, I think that removing *all* might have gone
too far - in that we are giving up a certain degree of control over the
instance documents that could well lead to interoperability problems.
Ray Plante wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Matthew Graham wrote:
>>I just want to point out one small consequence of: "According to the XML
>>Schema standard (Part 1, Sect. 3.3.2, clause 1.2), the use of xsi:type in
>>the root element is sufficient for defining its type."
>>I will now be able to legally have a Registry entry:
> Hmm, this example hadn't occured to me.
> Yeah, I was surprised when I discovered this fact (by accident). With the
> right control over the context in which the records are encoded, we may be
> able to prevent this. Certainly we can force the use of "resource" in the
> WS context. I haven't had the chance to fully understand the
> ramifications of this.
>>I hope that we are intending to have a "best uses" guide which says that
>>although the root element can be anything, it should really be called
> at least.
Dr. Paul Harrison, Astrogrid Developer
MERLIN/VLBI National Facility, University of Manchester,
Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, U.K.
tel +44 (0)1477 572681 (direct), 571321 (switch) - 07904025192 (mobile).
More information about the registry