Hi All,
Gregor posted my rather long winded description of confusion about semantics in XML Schema to the list and it may have confused you. It can be summed up with a simple question to which a simple answer is all that suffices.
*"Are the semantics encoded in the XML Schema or in the structure of the XML instance documents that validate against that schema? Is it possible to 'understand' an instance document without reference to the schema?"*
Possible answers are:
1. *Yes:* you can understand an XML instance document in the absence of a schema it validates against i.e. just from the structure of the elements and the namespaces used. 2. *No*: you require the XML Schema to understand the document.
This is not a trivial question. The answers may require different approaches to an overall architecture.
Versioning of schemas, for example, becomes irrelevant if the answer is Yes - as the meaning is implicit in the structure you can throw the schema away and not loose anything. XML is 'self describing' so you would think this must be true. The schema is just a useful device to help you construct XML in the correct format.
If the answer in No then we need clear statements about how all instances must always bear links to a permanently retrievable schema - or they become meaningless. We need very tight version control of schemas and a method of linking between the versions so we can track how the meaning has changed. We also need clear statements on what happens when you can validate a document with multiple schemas? Does this imply multiple meanings? Schemas must be archived with any data etc.
If you respond to this message please state a preference for either 1 or 2. There is no middle road on this one!
All the best,
Roger