Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

Okay.  We need to clarify section 4 a bit on the role of the schema.

On the question of extension, the only way the schema can be extended 
is by IETF action.  An IETF working group can write a document that 
updates this schema, and can declare that new definitions use the new schema.

As for which version of XML Schema, I used the reference I was 
provided.  If there is a better reference, I am happy to use that.

However, the document makes no sense if the schema is not with the 
document.  Having it somewhere else just won't work.  Having it in an 
appendix is workable.  I am still waiting to hear from others on the 
list as to whic of the schema, the FE Object definition, and the 
example definition they would prefer to see in an appendix.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 03:41 AM 10/30/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>---- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:13 PM
>Subject: Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt
>
>
> > Sorry, unlike the other comments, you have lost me on this one.
> > The only XML permitted by the model is XML which conforms to the schema.
> > And there are no ##any clauses, so that is quite a tight restriction.
> > (unlike some of the other protocols that are using XML.)
> >
>That is fine but I think s4 needs to spell that out more explicitly; 
>I only sort
>of got the message.  Elsewhere, many - most? - users of XML I see 
>have multiple
>schema so it might be the expectation of vendors creating private 
>LFB Class that
>they can extend the schema as they choose.
>
>Is there any technical way of limiting documents to just this schema (plus the
>XML one)?  I do not know of any.
>
>Two consequences.   First, it becomes more likely that there will be changes
>needed to the LFB schema in its early days, needs for new attributes or
>elements, which in turn will be easier to achieve if the schema is 
>in a separate
>document as opposed to part of a large -model document (pork barrel politics).
>
>Second, which version of the XML Schema are you usiing/ I note that this I-D
>references [14] the 2001 version (in the text but not in the URL) 
>while most I-D
>now reference 2004 or 2006; doubtless there will be more versions..
>
>I think this issue also extends to data types.  You list built-in atomic data
>types  (s4.5) which is a subset of those in the XML Schema; are the others
>positively excluded?  Again, I sort of get that message but think it should be
>stated more explicitly
>
>Tom Petch
> >
> > Also remember that the XML is not part of the protocol, but only part
> > of the semantic definition of the LFB classes.  THE XML schema is
> > actually a definition of an XML subset usex\d to define LFB
> > classes.  Those class definitions are not sent or received by the
> > ForCES protocol, but only used by the protocol to understand the
> > meaning of the identifiers.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel M. Halpern
> >
> > At 12:30 PM 10/27/2006, tom.petch wrote:
> > >Thinking some more about not understanding what is permitted 
> with keys (and
> > >prompted by reading another XML data model I-D), I would like to see
> > >more about
> > >the usage of XML.  This I-D dives straight into ForCES technology and
>explains
> > >that at length, but lacks much in the way of what XML is and is not
>permitted.
> > >
> > >Keys are one example.  Another is the question I raised earlier 
> about Schema
>;
> > >there is a Schema but is it the Schema? (most XML I know has several with
> > >consequent namespace issues).  Basic data types is another; I saw a
> > >statemant in
> > >another I-D that there are 44 in XML Schema which left me 
> wondering about the
> > >list in -model.  Schema versioning? much about LFB Class versioning but
>Schema
> > >have versions too.  Namespaces, the use of elementID, NMTOKEN ...
> > >
> > >I have a sense of unspoken assumptions about which bits of XML 
> will be used,
> > >which not, and
> > >would like more explicitness.
> > >
> > >Which is all I can produce by way of last call comments for the moment.
> > >
> > >Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Patrick Droz" <[email protected]>
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:36 AM
> > >Subject: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to issue last call on the model draft. As this is
> > > > a fairly large document the LC will last for 3 weeks and will
> > > > therefore end just before the next IETF. It is draft:
> > > > draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt
> > > > and can be found at:
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt
> > > >
> > > > A number of people have indicated that if the document is in
> > > > LC they would thoroughly review the document. I hope people will
> > > > stick to their promises.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >