Re: [UR-WG] Comments/Questsions on usage#draft3 schema

Matt Ford wrote:

I have some comments/questions on your latest release of the proposed 2.0 spec.

- It's much more legible now; your effort in this is much appreciated by me at least! :-)

Heh! :-D

- I like the much cleaner type derivations.

- With regard to the AtomicActivityUsageRecord type: * I don't like how we call it an AtomicActivity and then use "JobName" as an element name. The activity may have nothing to do with jobs; I still feel as though we have a mix of the specific and generic in this type.

That bit was a cut-n-paste job done in a hurry. We can change it.

* In a similar line of thinking I wonder if elements such as "Status" should not be global and instead be local to a derived type such as "AtomicActivity" i.e., declared instead of referenced. Not all Usage records will necessarily have "Status" and it's meaning can in principle vary wildly.

I think I could repeat myself here.

- With regard to the CompoundUsageRecord: * It's abstract as you note; so how's it made specific? (the following questions may be due to my ignorance of XSD's). I guess I could extend the schema but how then do we make it so that people don't go off and arbitrarily extend it? How do we capture this if they do? For example if I naively defined a "grid-job" - treat this name as arbitrary ;-) - as the collection of AtomicActivity UsageRecords spawned by my Resource Broker (never more than ten) what do I do?

The purpose of the CUR is to define how to build compounds, and not why. The grounding of the compound is therefore a required step, and might be done like this: xsd:annotation xsd:documentation This is a compound UR type that is intended to indicate all jobs executed by a particular user on some grid in a particular week. Note that this is a higher-level constraint; no schema can capture the notion at a syntactic level. As such, it's just documented here. Not all compounds are this simple syntactically though. xsd:complexContent It should be noted that I might move the xsd:any from the CUR type into the element; the processing of xsd:any in the presence of XML schema extension is very strange indeed. (Every time I look at at it, I end up going "what was the author on when they thought of that?" and that's not a good sign.)

Should I even attempt this: my aim is to extend the schema to allow only compound records of 0 to 10 Atomic Activity records only? [...]

Maybe. I'm not a big enough schema whizz to say (I've never tried doing restriction of complex types). But it certainly looks close.

Or should I be thinking of CompoundUsageRecord as plumbing for as yet undefined parts of the UR-WG schema?

That's my real plan, with the definitions not necessarily being part of the UR-WG schemas. Private extensions are acceptable. Donal.