XSD Interoperability Grade

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

XSD Interoperability Grade

Mark Maxey
Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the categories, though.

Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns with identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g., AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].

I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools don't support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its interoperability.

Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various products?


Thanks,
Mark Maxey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XSD Interoperability Grade

xmlhelpline
This is a bit dated now, but much of it still applicable.

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/09/20/profiling-xml-schema.html

... for what its worth ...

Paul


===================================
W. Paul Kiel
xmlHelpline.com Consulting
[hidden email]
work: 919-846-0224
cell: 919-449-8801
website: http://www.xmlhelpline.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/paulxml
Your helpline for xml solutions.
===================================

> Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and
> categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the
> categories, though.
>
> Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The
> "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no
> one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns
> everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns with
> identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g.,
> AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].
>
> I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to
> maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't
> think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to
> be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools don't
> support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its
> interoperability.
>
> Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh
> the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various products?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Maxey






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XSD Interoperability Grade

Yves Lafon
In reply to this post by Mark Maxey
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Mark R Maxey wrote:

> Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and
> categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the
> categories, though.
>
> Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The
> "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no
> one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns
> everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns with
> identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g.,
> AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].

The tradeoff was to have in Basic all the needed patterns that were
reasonably implemented, and the core patterns used to define the
'advanced' ones (that are more experimental in their support or in their
reliance on other patterns)

> I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to
> maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't
> think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to
> be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools don't
> support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its
> interoperability.

We have an XSLT to identify patterns, see
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/detector/test.html

> Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh
> the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various products?

Unfortunately the Working Group in charge of this work closed, so we
currently can't foresee any update to this work, but other reports based
on our work can be done independently, as all the code needed is
available.
Cheers,

  >
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Maxey

--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: XSD Interoperability Grade

Mark Maxey
Thank you for your responses.

I've used the data bindings detector you referenced.   Unfortunately, this doesn't help me identify "dangerous" patterns because of the course granularity and category definitions as stated below.  For the detector to help flag patterns with questionable support, I'd need more information back in the generated report that could help me identify and quantify the risks.


Thanks again,
Mark


From: Yves Lafon <[hidden email]>
To: Mark R Maxey <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Date: 06/01/2010 03:46 PM
Subject: Re: XSD Interoperability Grade





On Thu, 27 May 2010, Mark R Maxey wrote:

> Thank you for your work.  You've done a great job at identifying and
> categorizing schema patterns.  I'm having problems understanding the
> categories, though.
>
> Each pattern falls into a binary "basic" or "advance" category.  The
> "advance" category includes both widely used patterns, patterns that no
> one supports (e.g., AnyURIEnumerationType01 [advanced]), and patterns
> everyone supports (e.g., DecimalElement01 [advanced]).  Some patterns with
> identical support across vendors fall into different categories, e.g.,
> AttributeOptional01 [basic] & AttributeFixed01 [advanced].

The tradeoff was to have in Basic all the needed patterns that were
reasonably implemented, and the core patterns used to define the
'advanced' ones (that are more experimental in their support or in their
reliance on other patterns)

> I would like to use your work to evaluate and refactor WSDLs & XSDs to
> maximize interoperability.  Given the current output, though, I don't
> think I could use it for that purpose.  What would be ideal for me is to
> be able to run a XSLT that would provide me feedback on which tools don't
> support a WSDL or XSD and a grade for each pattern found describing its
> interoperability.

We have an XSLT to identify patterns, see
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/detector/test.html

> Have you considered anything like this?  Are there any plans to refresh
> the results every year or two based on bug fixes to the various products?

Unfortunately the Working Group in charge of this work closed, so we
currently can't foresee any update to this work, but other reports based
on our work can be done independently, as all the code needed is
available.
Cheers,

 >
>
> Thanks,
> Mark Maxey

--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

        ~~Yves