Donal, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
A Stephen McGough wrote:
Attached is the XSD Schema defined at the face-to-face meeting held in London on the 17-19th November 2004. This schema should be read in conjunction with the JSDL draft document that came out of this meeting and is available on GridForge.
As always please try out the schema and let the list know of your experiences. We'd be particularly interested in those people who try to describe jobs they normally use vendor DRM systems for. What extensions do you require to describe your jobs and how easy is it to describe the jobs.
First off, this is all absolutely great. So I'm just going to nit-pick at what you've done. :^D
Nit-picking is what will make the schema much better.
Thinking about what was said at the F2F and reading the XSD spec carefully, I suspect that we really want to be using xsd:QName in many places where we're using xsd:token right now (with the names we define probably being in the same namespace as the elements, either that or a separate namespace for such tokens.)
What is the difference between xsd:QName and xsd:NMTOKEN? We've changed things over to xsd:NMTOKEN. It's easy to change to xsd:QName but I think we need to know why.
In particular, the following types probably need to derive from QName: operator, ApplicationTypeEnumeration, FileSystemTypeEnumeration, CreationFlagEnumeration, LimitTypeEnumeration
The types ProcessorArchitectureEnumeration and OperatingSystemTypeEnumeration should be OK coming from xsd:token, and their values may contain (single) spaces. In terms of correspondence of these terms with CIM:
P.A.E. ought to allow the defined set of string values that correspond to the defined CIM_Processor.Family values (*not* the numeric forms) but the detail in CIM is probably counter-productive for most apps.
We have them in now - so no more work (for me anyway). If we've missed any could people send the ones missed to the list. To make my life easy could you send the items needed to be added and not references to documents!
O.S.T.E. is the defined set of string values that correspond to the defined CIM_OperatingSystem.OSType values (*not* the numeric forms).
Ditto.
These were all taken based on the preliminary version of CIM 2.9, and the URL to reference is http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/ (there are also a lot of semi-correspondences through the rest of the resources, but CIM tends to describe the system whereas we're describing a request, so it is better to keep them separate.) Curiously, no other types that we've identified can be grounded in CIM.
Also, rangeValue could derive from xsd:token and not just xsd:string so we could pick up the normalization rules.
Hmm, but then people couldn't use spaces - is this going to cause people problems? I tend to write lists "2, 5, 6". Could easily ditch the spaces thoug. Also can you have commas in xsd:tokens? Thoughts please folks.
The various kinds of Units enumerations perhaps should derive from NCName? Either that or we should track how the UR-WG did it, even if we disagree with their approach.
They are now derived from xsd:NMToken.
Donal.
steve.. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Research Associate, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8310 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Assistant Warden, West Wing, Beit Hall, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BB tel: +44 (0)207-594-9910 ------------------------------------------------------------------------