error in SSAP v1.2 extension schema

[Theresa Dower]

Paul,


Thanks for looking into the issue and writing up the errata! I agree with you and Markus that removing the unused ProtoSpectralAccess element is the thing to do here.


--Theresa


________________________________
From: registry-bounces at ivoa.net <registry-bounces at ivoa.net> on behalf of Paul Harrison <paul.harrison at manchester.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:32:24 PM
To: Markus Demleitner
Cc: registry at ivoa.net
Subject: Re: error in SSAP v1.2 extension schema



> On 2018-08 -24, at 09:15, Markus Demleitner <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:05:27AM +0000, Paul Harrison wrote:
>> there is an error in the SSAP extension schema that is delivered
>> for the http://www.ivoa.net/xml/SSA/v1.1 namespace  (which is in
>> fact v1.2 of the schema). This schema file has an element
>> ProtoSpectralAccess defined which is erroneously an extension at
>> line 958 of ssap:SSACapRestriction which does not exist in the
>> schema.
>
> Ouch.  My bad.  For SimpleDALRegExt 1.1, we dropped the restriction
> (that fixed the standardID, which kept people from using the SIA
> extension to register SIAv2 services).  I ran an XML validator on the
> schema file, which doesn't catch this.
>
> Regrettably, even loading the schema into an (lxml-based) schema
> processor doesn't flag the issue, so I again haven't noticed it.  Hm.
> I can't say I understand why that is, and I don't have time just now
> to try and figure it out.

It is my recent adventures in using code generation tools that have highlighted these issues - they generate the code without complaint, but then the compiler spots it easily….Though when subsequently verifying that the compiler was right, the eclipse schema validator did find the problem, after I too had made the initial error of just XML validating...

> But having ProtoSpectralAccess part of the standard has been painful
> all along.  I'd argue that removing something that shouldn't have
> been there, that is no longer used, that should not be used in the
> future, and the removal of which will make this work a better place
> shouldn't be blocked by the TCG.
>
> Does anyone want to protest?  If not: Paul, do you feel like writing
> an Erratum for the removal?[1]



I am happy to write the erratum is no-one objects….


Paul.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/registry/attachments/20180827/529b5ff4/attachment.html>