The main problem will be performance and excessively long validation times
and either asking the user to change their schema or model it different
way. These are all undesirable. Attributes I hope will be supported in
the future release . Redefine construct is hardly used in the practical
applications; at least I haven't come across any customer that uses this
construct ..
Suman Kalia
IBM Toronto Lab
WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923
Fax : 905-413-4850
Internet ID : kalia(a)ca.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM on 01/19/2006 01:49 PM -----
Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com>
01/19/2006 01:15 PM
To
Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Mike Beckerle <beckerle(a)us.ibm.com>, dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org,
owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
Subject
Re: Fw: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous XPaths to hidden elements
We are already putting constraints on user-defined schema, by saying that
we don't support redefines and attributes for example. I don't see an
issue
with further constraints if they make DFDL easier to understand and/or
easier to create a DFDL parser.
I don't have a problem with saying that an XPath must return a single
unambiguous node else it is an error.
I don't have a problem with saying the XPaths can't reference hidden
elements, and that context must be used instead.
Regards, Steve
Steve Hanson
WebSphere Message Brokers,
IBM Hursley, England
Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
Suman Kalia
<kalia(a)ca.ibm.com
> To
Sent by: Mike Beckerle <beckerle(a)us.ibm.com>
owner-dfdl-wg@ggf cc
.org dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org,
owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
Subject
19/01/2006 18:02 Fw: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous XPaths to
hidden elements
Well if we go with global complex type approach (which I described option
1
in previous append) then it is not issue.. XPATH work and there are no
conflicts with user defined schemas ..
Suman Kalia
IBM Toronto Lab
WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923
Fax : 905-413-4850
Internet ID : kalia(a)ca.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM on 01/19/2006 12:59 PM -----
Mike
Beckerle/Worcester/IBM@IBMUS
To
01/19/2006 12:59 PM Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org,
owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
Subject
Re: Fw: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous
XPaths to hidden elementsLink
So we have a quandry here:
on one hand we don't want to change the XPath syntax to include a device
that would let us be clear that we're navigating a hidden layer
on the other hand we don't want to constrain what can be included so that
we wouldn't need such a device.
...mikeb
Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Integration Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
voice and FAX 508-599-7148
home/mobile office 508-915-4767
Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
01/19/2006 11:52 AM To
Mike
Beckerle/Worcester/IBM@IBMUS
cc
dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org,
owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
Subject
Fw: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous
XPaths to hidden elements
As a design point , We should strive not to put limitations on the user
defined schemas - it just works out better in the long run.
Note the xsd:groups can be nested and they could be many levels deep and
this problem is not restricted to groups included from noTarget namespace
, it could be from any namespace. As per schema rules, all local elements
defined in groups or complex types belong to noTarget namespace unless
elementFormDefault is explicitly set to "qualified" at schema level or on
the specific element.
Detecting such conflicts could be quite expensive particularly when you
have very large schemas. Industry standard ACORD messaging schema is a
good example it is about 1.5 M and it takes awfully long (hours) to
validate it. Putting additional constraints like this will further slow
down validation.
Suman Kalia
IBM Toronto Lab
WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923
Fax : 905-413-4850
Internet ID : kalia(a)ca.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM on 01/19/2006 11:39 AM -----
Mike Beckerle
<beckerle(a)us.ibm.com>
Sent by: owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
To
"Robert E. McGrath"
01/19/2006 10:48 AM <mcgrath(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu>
cc
dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org,
owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
Subject
Re: Fw: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous
XPaths to hidden elements
One idea that hasn't been advanced yet is ruling out the problematic case.
Let me illustrate. Here's the example, modified to have a model group
reference which can introduce the name conflict:
<xs:element name="root">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:annotation><xs:appinfo
source=?http://dataformat.org? />
<hidden>
<xs:element name="repeats" type="xs:integer"/>
</hidden>
</xs:appinfo></xs:annotation
>
<xs:element name="testElement"
type="xs:integer " minOccurs=?0? maxOccurs=?unbounded?
dfdl:repeatCount=?../repeats?>
<xs:group ref="groupFromOtherSchemaFile"/>
<!-- what if this has an element decl named "repeats"? -->
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
So, what hasn't been suggested yet is this: What if we just say DFDL
doesn't allow this? It's an error which must be detected. This DFDL schema
is broken because the path "../repeats" cannot be analyzed along with the
DFDL schema to return only a single node.
I beleive name conflicts like this are what namespace management is for.
XSD has truly great namespace managment. You can solve the problem that
way.
Furthermore, when you define a reusable named group like the definer of
the
"groupFromOtherSchemaFile" above, and you put it in no target namespace,
that's the situation where this conflict can arise. Expecting that your
names are never going to conflict with anything in that case is just
naive.
It's equivalent to having global variables in a C program module and
expecting you can never link it to something else that uses the same
names.
Those name conflicts can occur, and someone has to change the conflicting
name. In XSD we can do that by including the group in a schema which puts
it into a target namespace so that after that the namespaces can be used
to
disambiguate.
The approach above is consistent with the path "../repeats" still being
officialy an "XPath", it just adds the semantic restriction that it must
be
an XPath that identifies a single node unambiguously, independent of what
data is being processed. This is one of these "data independent" notions
(what I had previously been calling "static"), as we discussed yesterday.
...mikeb
"Robert E. McGrath"
<mcgrath(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Sent by: owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
To
dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
01/19/2006 10:00 AM cc
Subject
Re: Fw: [dfdl-wg]
Ambiguous XPaths to hidden
elements
I would want to change XPath only as a last resort. (Any of the
options is OK by me, assuming we have to mess with the Xpath
at all.)
Can we deal with this some other way?
Can we document the problematic cases, and suggest best practices that
will minimize the problem?
On Thursday 19 January 2006 08:45, Suman Kalia wrote:
> I fully agree with Steve - let's not invent another XPATH like syntax ..
>
> Suman Kalia
> IBM Toronto Lab
> WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
> Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923
> Fax : 905-413-4850
> Internet ID : kalia(a)ca.ibm.com
> ----- Forwarded by Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM on 01/19/2006 09:43 AM -----
>
> Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com>
> Sent by: owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
> 01/19/2006 04:43 AM
>
> To
> "Westhead, Martin (Martin)" <westhead(a)avaya.com>
> cc
> dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org, owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org
> Subject
> Re: [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous XPaths to hidden elements
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As a DFDL parser implementor I do not want modifications to the XPath
> syntax. I want to be able to reuse existing XPath implementations. It's
> also something else for the user to have to learn. So 2a/b/c are not
> attractive.
>
> Regards, Steve
>
> Steve Hanson
> WebSphere Message Brokers,
> IBM Hursley, England
> Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com
> Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
>
>
>
> "Westhead, Martin
> (Martin)"
> <westhead(a)avaya.c
To
>
> om> <dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org>
> Sent by:
cc
>
> owner-dfdl-wg@ggf
> .org
Subject
>
> [dfdl-wg] Ambiguous XPaths to
> hidden elements
> 18/01/2006 20:24
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This is to try to pick up on the issue identified by Suman in today?s
> call.
>
> The Issue
> Consider the following example:
>
> <xs:element name="root">
> <xs:complexType>
> <xs:sequence>
>
<xs:annotation><xs:appinfo
> source=?http://dataformat.org? />
> <hidden>
> <xs:element name="repeats" type="xs:integer"/>
> </hidden>
>
> </xs:appinfo></xs:annotation >
> <xs:element name="testElement"
> type="xs:integer " minOccurs=?0? maxOccurs=?unbounded?
> dfdl:repeatCount=?../repeats?>
> </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element>
>
> The problem is that the path ?../repeats? can be broken by modifications
> to
> the logical model due to name clashes on ?repeats? and there are cases
> that
> can be constructed where this would not be obvious to a user.
>
> Possible Solutions
> Possible fixes to this include:
> 1. Disallow XPath references to hidden elements the user is forced
> to
> place the material into the global context to refer to it.
> 2. Provide a special XPath operator to indicate we are
referencing
> a
> hidden element, possibilities include:
> a. ?../hidden(repeats)?
> b. ?hidden(../repeats)?
> c. ?../dfdl:hidden/repeats?
> 3. Only allow hidden elements to be present in top level global
> complex
> types. These can then be included where needed. (This is the
> solution
> that Suman was pushing but I don?t fully understand it ?
> in
> particular I don?t see how it resolves the ambiguity issue.)
>
>
> I believe my preference here is 2a or 2b followed by 1.
>
> Comments/suggestions/opinions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
--
---
Robert E. McGrath, Ph.D.
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1205 West Clark
Urbana, Illinois 61801
(217)-333-6549
mcgrath(a)ncsa.uiuc.edu
