Re: [codelist-comment] The Codelist specification references an undefined xml-schema.

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thank you for your question to the code list TC, Fabian.

At 2019-04-24 07:16 +0200, Fabian Boumeester wrote:
> The specification of the Genericode codelists refers to the schema 
> with XML-Namespace 
> "<http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/rule/1.0/>http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/rule/1.0/"; 
> twice.

Not exactly. The specification refers to the XML namespace with the 
namespace URI that you've quoted. Per the XML Namespace 
specification, by definition a namespace URI is not a schema 
identifier (though many choose to use it as such; we don't, we use it 
only as a namespace identifier).

Both the rule namespace URI and the genericode namespace URI resolve 
to the same XHTML documentation page with embedded RDDL directives 
that describe the resources needed to understand and validate 
genericode documents. In here one can find the pointers to the schema 
fragments needed for machine validation.

> It has declared the prefix "rule" for it. However I was not able to 
> find any formal schema for that XML-Namespace, neither in textual 
> form, nor in XML-Schema form.

Indeed there is no formal schema for the rule namespace as its sole 
purpose is to satisfy a namespace declaration that is used for 
embedding identifiable rules in the genericode schema expression. 
There is no opportunity to validate that the XSD schema with these 
embedded rules has properly expressed those rules, and so there is no 
need for a schema for those rules.

The author/editor of the genericode specification utilized the 
namespace prefix by extracting the documentation of the rules out of 
the genericode schema to put into the external documentation. It 
would have been a challenge to do so using automated means without 
being able to reliably identify and characterize the rule statements.

So since the rule namespace does not participate in genericode file 
validation, and it has no role so never shows up in a genericode 
instance, there is no need to supply any associated schema fragment 
to impact on or to support genericode schema conformance.

I hope this has illuminated the situation for you. Please do not 
hesitate to contact the committee with any other questions you may have.

. . . . . . . Ken


--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |