XSD - new VALID schema

[Rob Seaman]

On Aug 10, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Tony Linde wrote:

>> fact, there is no one single schema that is acceptable.  One
>> shouldn't say "the VOEvent schema", but rather, "a VOEvent schema".
>
> I don't agree with that.

Fine.  But "the official IVOA VOEvent v1.1 schema" is also just "a  
VOEvent schema".  I'm happy to have the Pope and the Dalai Lama bless  
some version, but that doesn't infallibly make it better than some  
other schema.  A conforming document is conforming whether or not it  
validates against even the blessed "schematic" representation of the  
specification.

Either the specification is law or the schema is law - you can't have  
it both ways.  Schema == pragma.

>> versions of VOEvent, post-1.2, but would strongly urge we not
>> modify v1.1N for "technology" reasons.  I think the RFC
>> comment period should be used to call out missing or broken
>> features, not to focus on issues of software philosophy.
>
> The RFC is for people to raise ANY issues which they think is a  
> problem in
> the spec whether it is functional or technical or anything-else-al.  
> And the
> workgroup then have to reply to those issues.

Again - fine.  But the question is whether issues of schema usage  
rise to the level of missing or broken features.  Comments regarding  
ways to improve the correspondence between a (or "the") schema and  
the underlying specification don't require debate - simply tweak the  
schema as needed (with all the version control you want).  On the  
other hand, requests to change the specification do require debate -  
whether they have anything to do with schemata or not.

As I said, I think that questions purely of VOEvent's interaction  
with features of XML schemata are fine and dandy, but would strongly  
prefer we embargo these until v1.2.  "The" v1.1 schema (in my  
estimation) is acceptable for our purposes.

> I would say though that such issues should all be listed on the RFC  
> wiki
> page with the responses so that when the TCC and exec look to see  
> if the
> spec is really ready to be passed on to the next stage, they can  
> judge if
> all issues have been properly addressed.

As Petr's previous comments have been.  I wouldn't be writing an  
email if I didn't take the RFC seriously.

Rob