Re: [regrep] Canonical XML Validation Service?

[cmattocks@metlife.com]

John:

Excellent suggestion. I think if we target the lightest form of OWL it will be quite doable.

thus +1 on the Schematron plus approach

Carl Mattocks
Consultant : ITIL Application Knowledge Management
MetLife 732 893 4170

'Always look on the bright side of life' Monty Python
"Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>

"Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM> 11/16/2005 03:02 PM

To: johng@sisconet.com cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [regrep] Canonical XML Validation Service?

John Gillerman wrote:
>Farrukh,
>
>Can the Schematron be used in conjunction with an OWL based validation. I
>would think we want a infrastructure that can be extended to semantic
>validation.
>
Hi John,

That is a very interesting question. From the current registry spec view
point it is fairly trivial to special two Canonical Validation Services:

1. Canonical XML Validation Service with Schematron as Invocation
Control File

2. Canonical RDF Validation Service with OWL as Invocation Control File

Then there is the possibility of a third validation Service:

3. Canonical XML Validation Service with OWL as Invocation Control File

Though I am not as certain of technical issues the last service may face
in specification and implementation.

(1) is easiest to specify and presents the least implementation burden.
I would propose it to be a required feature.

(2) is easy to specify but harder to implement. I would propose it as an
optional feature

In summary I could see next version of spec specifying (1) as required
and (2) as optional feature.

Thanks for the excellent suggestion.
>Regards,
>
>John Gillerman
>SISCO
>www.sisconet.com
>T: 732 937-9745
>F: 775-667-0355
>M: 732 979-9595
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:57 AM
>>To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [regrep] Canonical XML Validation Service?
>>
>>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>>As you know we have a required Canonical XML Cataloging Service in
>>>ebRS that specifies use of XSLT stylesheets as invocation
>>>
>>control file
>>
>>>for cataloging XML Content.
>>>This is a very powerful feature because it allows declarative
>>>alternative to programming a cataloging service for
>>>
>>objectTypes that
>>
>>>are XML based.
>>>
>>>For the next version of our specs, I would like to propose
>>>
>>that we do
>>
>>>the same concept with a new "Canonical XML Validation Service" that
>>>specifies use of Schematron language as invocation control file for
>>>validating XML Content. This would enable a declarative
>>>
>>alternative to
>>
>>>programming a validation service for objectTypes that are XML based.
>>>
>>>Consider the case for specifying business rules required by
>>>
>>the "ebXML
>>
>>>Profile for Web Services". The following example illustrates how
>>>simply it could be expressed in Schematron rather than
>>>
>>programming a
>>
>>>validation service:
>>>
>>><schema xmlns="http://www.ascc.net/xml/schematron">
>>> <title>A Schematron rules file for validating WSDL
>>>
>>according to the
>>
>>>ebXML Registry profile for Web Services</title> <pattern
>>>name="Section 6.2 Business Rules: First rule">
>>> <rule context="wsdl:binding">
>>> <assert test="soap:binding">Validation Error: WSDL
>>>
>>Binding MUST
>>
>>>be a SOAP Binding</assert>
>>> </rule>
>>> </pattern>
>>> <pattern name="Section 6.2 Business Rules: Second rule">
>>> <rule context="soap:binding">
>>> <assert test="string(@style) = 'document'">Validation
>>>
>>Error: WSDL
>>
>>>SOAP Binding MUST use Document style</assert>
>>> </rule>
>>> </pattern>
>>> <pattern name="Section 6.2 Business Rules: Second rule">
>>> <rule context="soap:binding">
>>> <assert test="string(@transport) =
>>>'http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http'">Validation Error: WSDL SOAP
>>>Binding MUST use HTTP transport</assert>
>>> </rule>
>>> </pattern>
>>></schema>
>>>
>>>As you can see this is a very powerful feature as the
>>>
>>alternative is
>>
>>>to program a validation service as a SOAP endpoint and deploy it
>>>somewhere.
>>>With this feature it is all self-contained within the registry.
>>>
>>>What do folks think of adding this as a feature in next
>>>
>>version of the
>>
>>>specs?
>>>
>>>
>>I forgot to mention an important detail. Schematron is an ISO
>>standard:
>>
>>http://www.schematron.com/spec.html
>>
>>So we would be building our specs on firm ground.
>>Thanks.
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Farrukh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Regards,
Farrukh


(See attached file: farrukh.najmi.vcf)---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.

farrukh.najmi.vcf