gmane.text.xml.relaxng.discuss

New validator

Dave Pawson — 2012-04-19T05:03:56

Copied from xml-dev

The purpose of the Serene project is to create an open source
validation engine implementing the JAXP 1.3 Validation Framework API
for RELAX NG, that concentrates on good messages and a clear handling
of ambiguity and conflicts.

For this release, Serene has been extensively reviewed and refactored
in order to improve performance. Some bugs were fixed, messages were
slightly tweaked, one feature was added.

For more information, please come to
 http://code.google.com/p/serene/

Thank you,
Radu Cernuta

Is SVG 1.1 RNG schema valid?

Michael[tm] Smith — 2012-04-13T05:55:28

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/rng/svg-basic-font.rng has the following
(if you prefer to read it in RNC, see the RNC equivalents at the end)

  <define name="SVG.font-face.extra.class">
    <notAllowed/>
  </define>

  <define name="SVG.font-face.content">
    <zeroOrMore>
      <ref name="SVG.Description.class"/>
    </zeroOrMore>
    <optional>
      <ref name="font-face-src"/>
    </optional>
    <ref name="SVG.font-face.extra.class"/>
  </define>

So SVG.font-face.extra.class is defined as notAllowed at that point.

Then, http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/rng/svg-font.rng has the following
(let's call it A):

  <include href="svg-basic-font.rng"/>

  <define name="SVG.font-face.extra.class" combine="interleave">
    <optional>
      <ref name="definition-src"/>
    </optional>
  </define>

Is that valid? Or should it instead be the following (let's call it B):

  <include href="svg-basic-font.rng">
    <define name="SVG.font-face.extra.class" combine="interleave">
      <optional>
        <ref name="definition-src"/>
      </optional>
    </define>
  </include>

I ask because if I keep it as in A above, it causes jing to throw an NPE
(which is a bug in jing regardless, and I already raised an issue for it:
http://code.google.com/p/jing-trang/issues/detail?id=156), but if I change
it to B, jing works as expected.

  --Mike

[1] Same bits above as RNC instead:

In file svg-basic-font.rnc:

  SVG.font-face.extra.class = notAllowed
  SVG.font-face.content =
      SVG.Description.class*,
      font-face-src?,
      SVG.font-face.extra.class

Then in svg-font.rnc:

(A)
  include "svg-basic-font.rnc"
  SVG.font-face.extra.class &= definition-src?

(B)
  include "svg-basic-font.rnc" {
    SVG.font-face.extra.class &= definition-src?
  }

odd result in trang-generated RNG

Terry Catapano — 2012-04-12T15:45:45

I'm using Trang to generate a RelaxNG schema from a set of XML
documents. I've run into a result I don't understand and which I hope
someone can explain.

Here are 4 xml documents:

case1.xml: One A element followed by one B element

<root>
  <A>xxxxx</A>
  <B>yyyyy</B>
</root>

case2.xml: One A element followed by two B elements

<root>
   <A>xxxxx</A>
   <B>yyyyy</B>
   <B>yyyyy</B>
</root>

case3.xml: One B element followed by one A element

<root>
   <B>yyyyy</B>
   <A>yyyyy</A>
</root>

case4.xml: Two B elements

<root>
   <B>yyyyy</B>
   <B>yyyyy</B>
</root>


Using these 4 documents as input, Trang (both version 20081028 and
20091111) generates the following RNG schema:

<grammar ns="" xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"
datatypeLibrary="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes">
 <start>
   <element name="root">
     <oneOrMore>
       <choice>
         <element name="A">
           <data type="NCName"/>
         </element>
         <element name="B">
           <data type="NCName"/>
         </element>
       </choice>
     </oneOrMore>
   </element>
 </start>
</grammar>

or in compact syntax:

default namespace = ""

start =
 element root {
   (element A { xsd:NCName }
    | element B { xsd:NCName })+
 }

What is surprising to me is that the resulting pattern does not
require a B element so that the following document:

<root>
  <A>xxxxx</A>
</root>

is valid, though I'd assume it would be invalid, given that a B
element is present in each of the input instances.

Is this a bug or mistake on Trang's part or something which is to be
understood as a reasonable result? I can imagine that inferring
patterns from a set of sample documents must be difficult going and
that what one gets from Trang might not be optimal. I would like to
understand it better, however, so I can adjust my expectations for
what I'll get from it and what additional work I might need to do to
use what it produces.

Thanks,

Terry

CFP: TEI tutorials & workshops (Mon 11-05 to Wed 11-07 < at > TAMU)

Syd Bauman — 2012-03-25T15:41:57

 I think a 0.5 or 1.0 day hands-on tutorial on RELAX NG, or a 1.0 or
 1.5 day hands-on tutorial on Schematron would be quite apropos for
 this group. (What would be best, IMHO, is a 3-day hands-on tutorial
 on TEI customization that covers TEI, ODD, RELAX NG, and Schematron,
 but the call limits tutorials to 2 days.)  -- Syd

===================================================

Call for pre-conference workshop and tutorial proposals

TEI and the C(r|l)o(w|u)d
2012 Annual Conference and Members? Meeting of the TEI Consortium
Texas A&M University, Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture

* Workshop proposals due Wed 15 May 2012
* Workshop dates: Mon 5 November to Wed 7 November, 2012
* Meeting dates: Wed 7 November to Sat 10 November, 2012 (see separate call)

The TEI Conference and Members' Meeting will be preceded by
educational tutorials or workshops. The goal of the tutorials is to
give an opportunity to learn more about the use of TEI markup under
the guidance of experienced instructors and practitioners, whereas
workshops are an opportunity for specific groups to meet and work
together on a TEI related subject.

Workshops and tutorials range in length from a single morning or
afternoon to a maximum of two days. Tutorials are run on a
cost-recovery basis: a separate fee is charged of participants that
is intended to cover the costs of running the tutorial. Workshops are
expected to be free of charges.

If you are interested in proposing either a workshop or a tutorial
for the 2012 Members? Meeting and Conference, please submit your
proposal as early as possible and before 15 May 2012 via conftool,
the availability of which will be announced shortly. Expressions of
interest should include as much as possible of the following
information (the committee is willing to work with proposers in
developing their proposals):
   * A proposed topic
   * A rationale explaining why this topic is likely to draw sufficient attention to the TEI community
   * Preferred length of the event
   * Infrastructural requirements
   * (In the case of a tutorial) A proposed instructor or slate of
     instructors including brief discussion of relevant experience,
     as well as a preliminary budget of your anticipated costs (if
     any).
   * (In the case of a workshop) A core list of people who are likely
     to participate, keeping in mind that workshops are by essence
     open for participation
Organisational and infrastructure costs (e.g. coffee breaks and the
like) will be determined later in conjunction with the local
organising committee.

Tutorial proposals will be evaluated by the programme committee
primarily on the basis of their likely appeal to the TEI community,
the quality of the proposed instructors and method of instruction,
and cost. The committee will work with selected organizers after this
date to refine the details of their proposals.

Please send queries to meeting-Ezmyqz1S860EbZ0PF+XxCw< at >public.gmane.org

For the International Programme Committee,

Elena Pierazzo (chair)
-------
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Lecturer in Digital Humanities
Chair of the Teaching Committee
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
elena.pierazzo-3vygKqVCdQxaa/9Udqfwiw< at >public.gmane.org
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh

CFP: TEI 2012 (Wed 11-07 to Sat 11-10 < at > TAMU)

Syd Bauman — 2012-03-22T02:59:37

Call for papers and proposals
==== === ====== === =========

TEI and the C(r|l)o(w|u)d
2012 Annual Conference and Members¹ Meeting of the TEI Consortium
Texas A&M University, Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture

* Deadline for submissions: May 15, 2012
* Meeting dates: Wed 7 November to Sat 10 November, 2011
* Workshop dates: Mon 5 November to Wed 7 November, 2012 (see separate call)

The Programme Committee of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Text
Encoding Initiative (TEI - http://www.tei-c.org/) Consortium invites
individual paper proposals, panel sessions, poster sessions, and tool
demonstrations particularly, but not exclusively, on digital texts,
scholarly editing or any topic that applies TEI to its research.

Submission Topics
---------- ------
Topics might include but are not restricted to:
- TEI and Google Books
- Handicraft vs. Large Scale Digitization: a False Dichotomy?
- TEI and massive digital collections
- TEI and Recording Document Corrections
- TEI and 'Dirty' OCR
- TEI Schemas and Document Publication History
- Text vs. Document: Can the TEI semantics express both?
- TEI and text corpora
- The relation between representation (encoded text) and presentation
  (visualisation, user-interface)
- TEI encoded data in the context of quantitative text analysis
- Integrating the TEI with other technologies and standards
- TEI as metadata standard
- TEI as interchange format: sharing, mapping, and migrating data (in
  particular in relation to other formats or software environments)

In addition, we are seeking proposals for 5 minute micropaper
presentations focused on experiences with the TEI guidelines gained
from running projects and discussing one specific feature.

Submission Types
---------- -----
Individual paper presentations will be allocated 30 minutes: 20
minutes for delivery, and 10 minutes for questions & answers.

Panel sessions will be allocated 1.5 hours and may be of varied
formats, including:

  * three paper-panels: 3 papers on the same or related topics

  * round table discussion: 5-8 presenters on a single theme. Ample
    time should be left for questions & answers after brief optional
    presentations.

Posters (including tool demonstrations) will be presented during the
poster session. The local organizer will provide flip charts and
tables for poster session/tool demonstration presenters, along with
wireless internet access. Each poster presenter is expected to
participate in a slam immediately preceding the poster session.

Micropapers will be allocated 5 minutes.

Submission Procedure
---------- ---------
All proposals should be submitted via conftool, the availability of which
will be announced shortly.  Please submit your proposals by May 15, 2012.

If you don¹t have already one, you will need to create an account (i.e.,
username and password) in order to file a submission. For each submission,
you may upload files to the system after you have completed filling out
demographic data and the abstract.

  * Individual paper or poster proposals (including tool
    demonstrations): Supporting materials (including graphics,
    multimedia, etc., or even a copy of the complete paper) may be
    uploaded after the initial abstract is submitted. Submission
    should be made in the form of an abstract of 750-1500 words (plus
    bibliography).

  * Micropaper: The procedure is the same as for an individual paper,
    however the abstract should be no more than 500 words. Please be
    sure the abstract mentions the TEI feature to be presented!

  * Panel sessions (three paper panels): The panel organizer submits
    a proposal for the entire session, containing a 500-word
    introduction explaining the overarching theme and rationale for
    the inclusion of the papers, together with a 750-1500 words
    section for each panel member.

  * Panel sessions (round table discussion): The panel organizer
    submits a proposal of 750-1500 words describing the rationale for
    the discussion and includes the list of panelists. Panelists need
    to be contacted by the panel organizer and have expressed their
    willingness in participation before submission.

Information
-----------
All proposals will be reviewed by the program committee and selected
external reviewers.

Those interested in holding working paper sessions outside the
meeting session tracks should contact the meeting organizers at
meeting-Ezmyqz1S863YtjvyW6yDsg< at >public.gmane.org to schedule a room.

Please send queries to meeting-Ezmyqz1S860EbZ0PF+XxCw< at >public.gmane.org

Conference submissions will be considered for conference proceedings,
edited as a special issue of the Journal of the Text Encoding
Initiative. Further details on the submission process will be
forthcoming.

For the International Programme Committee,

Elena Pierazzo (programme committee chair)

jing + RELAX NG xsd:token on attributes: spaces coalesced?

Jason Sachs — 2012-02-27T19:09:57

I'm confused. If I use the schema attrbug.rnc (see below) it seems to
let through multiple spaces in a row, even though that shouldn't be
legal.

I'm using this pattern:
  xsd:token { pattern="[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*( [A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*)*" }

Below is a test file that I'm using with "java -jar jing.jar -c
attrbug.rnc attrbug.xml".

What's going on here? Does jing coalesce spaces in attributes before
matching against xsd:token? Or am I missing something?

--Jason

--- begin file attrbug.xml ---
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<model>
  <item class="foo bar baz">we want a class attribute with multiple
    identifiers separated by single spaces.
  </item>
  <item class="foo    bar   baz">why does this not fail?</item>
  <item class="3 4 5">this fails as expected</item>
</model>
--- end file ---

--- begin file attrbug.rnc ---
# RELAX NG compact-syntax grammar

grammar {

# contains a model element
# the model element contains one or more item elements

start = element model { model-content }

model-content =
item+

item =
(element item { item-content })

item-content =
  attribute class { identifier-array },
  arbitrary-text-description

############### Text patterns ###############

arbitrary-text-description =
  text

identifier =
  xsd:token { pattern="[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*" }

identifier-array =
  xsd:token { pattern="[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*( [A-Za-z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*)*" }

}
--- end file ---

Generating _1 = element * { notAllowed } any ideas why?

Alex Muir — 2012-02-16T13:33:40

In doing a conversion as follows

jing -s -c dk-extensions.rnc > dk-extensions.rng
trang dk-extensions.rng dk-common.rnc


I get this in the resulting output file:

_1 = element * { notAllowed }

And within the file a bunch of:

     | _1

which result in interleave errors elsewhere in the document

E [Jing] the element "nutrition" from namespace "
http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" can occur in more than one operand of
"interleave"

unless removed.

Any idea why?

Regards

Creating a Flat rnc File Automatically

Alex Muir — 2012-02-16T11:12:11

Hi,

I've written a script that I thought would flatten various rnc files into
one such that dk-extensions.rnc includes cookery.inc, phrasebook.inc and
db-publishers-sc.rnc but I'm not sure it works.

jing -s -c dk-extensions.rnc > dk-extensions.rng
trang dk-extensions.rng dk-common.rnc

although when I search for some of the text included in the
dk-extensions.rnc by the cookery.inc or phrasebook.inc I don't easily find
it.

include "../cookery/cookery.inc"
include "../phrasebook/phrasebook.inc"


Or if I search for  "condition.attribute" which is included by the
following text I don't find it in the resulting dk-common.rnc

include "db-publishers-sc.rnc" {
  db.condition.attribute =

    ## DK Specific: values are enumerated here:
    attribute condition { "prt" | "dig" | "imperial" | "metric" }
}

Any thoughts on what I'm doing wrong or if this should work at all?

Regards

RNG parser

jcchartrand — 2012-01-11T19:12:42

Hello,

I'm hoping someone can point me at a library (preferably java) that will parse an RNG schema and subsequently answer questions like:

What parents are allowed for a given element?

What children are allowed for a given element?

What are the attributes of a given element?

So that I can in turn set up a RESTful web service having a call like:

GET http://myservice.ca/schemaName/elementName 

returning JSON, something like:

{"element" :  "elementName", 
"allowableChildren" :  ["child1", "child2", "child3"], 
"allowableParents" :  ["parent2", "parent2"], 
"attributes" :  ["attrib1", "attrib2"],
"documentation" : "documentationIfAvailable"
}

The information would be used to provide general and contextual help in an online js editing environment we're building.  The general help would look a lot like the TEI help pages, e.g., 

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-actor.html

The contextual help would filter allowed tags given current tag position.

james

Newbie With jing Problem

Jim Orcheson — 2011-12-18T12:04:04

As a test, I created a simple DocBook document by copying example 1.2 
from DocBook 5: The Definitive Guide:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<article xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" version="5.0" xml:lang="en">
<title>Sample article</title>
<para>This is a very short article.</para>
</article>

I then attempted to validate this using jing:

java -jar /usr/share/java/jing.jar relaxng.rng test.xml

and also:

java -jar /usr/share/java/jing.jar -c relaxng.rnc test.xml

In both cases I get the following output:


So, I am obviously doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what 
by reading the jing documentation. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Jim

Pattern-based nameClass restrictions?

Xavier Morel — 2011-11-23T10:48:39

I was looking into name classes, in order to build partially variable
attribute names (e.g. accept attributes starting with `foo-` with
anything after that).

The xsd:QName type allows further restrictions via e.g. the `pattern`
parameter (works the same way as the corresponding `string`
parameter), so that seemed possible, but I hit a snag when I tried to
hook that restricted QName into my schema:

1. The <name> pattern only allows for a literal QName
2. <anyName> and <nsName> only allow for an <except>
3. <choice> and <except> only allow for 1..n nameClass (any of 1 to 3)

So it's not possible to hook in a QName alternative, and neither is it
(apparently) possible to combine <name> and <anyName> in a fixed and a
variable part of the same attribute name.

As a result, there does not seem to be any path towards what I need in
RelaxNG, the only possibility would be to define a new namespace and
use that namespace instead of my prefix (so I'd have foo:bar instead
of foo-bar). Am I mistaken somehow? Did I miss something?

(an other alternative would be to leave the rng schema to <anyName> and
set up this restriction using e.g. Schematron instead)

RuleML re-engineered in Relax NG

Tara Athan — 2011-11-16T17:27:51

Defaulted attributes... from a DTD. Trang

Dave Pawson — 2011-11-08T15:41:38

Given a DTD with many defaulted attributes,
how might they be handled in RNG please?

TIA

conditional definition

fede_gbr — 2011-11-04T09:47:30

hi, i'm a new user.
is possible in relax ng write something like this (Schematron):

<rule context='E'>
<report test='(< at >one) or not(< at >one and < at >two)'> E cannot have attribute `one' alone</report>
</rule>

this means that attribute one is relevant only if element two has a value.
more generally i want to specify that an attribute is relevant only if another attribute has a certain value.
thanks and sorry for my bad english!

RNG or XML Schema, which one to choose?

r.khondoker — 2011-08-22T16:09:47

Hi all,
I have a question regarding pros and cons of RNG and XML schema. I have found the comparison in the following website

http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/884

I found that

1. Rules: Both XML schema (XML-S) and RNG dont support rules.
2. Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI): XML-S supports, RNG dont
3. Structures: Both supports
4. Data types: XML-S supports, RNG supports partially
5. Integrity: XML-S supports, RNG dont

So far as I understand, the pros and cons of RNG and XML-S are as follows. Please correct me if I am wrong 


PROS

1. RNG is easy to understand and use. XML-S is comparatively difficult
2. Using RNG, you can define grammar. XML-S does not offer this

CONS

1. RNG does not provide the possibility to define an attribute or an element as mandatory or required. Using XML-S, you can define that explicitly using use="required"
2. Using RNG, you cannot define the boundary (min and max). Using XML-S, you can define that explicitly using minOccurs and maxOccurs
3. Using RNG, if you dont define optional explicitly, the attribute or element is required.

I found the pros and cons in the wiki as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_Language_comparison
  

Could you please let me know if there is any literature which describes the pros and cons of these two schemas with examples.

Thanking you,
Ratul

RNG schema bug?

Norman Walsh — 2011-10-25T10:58:05

Hello world,

This bit of RNC:

   db._any.attribute =
      [
         db:refpurpose [ "Any attribute, including any attribute in any namespace." ]
      ]
      attribute * { text }

becomes this bit of RNG when it's run through trang:

    <define name="db._any.attribute">
      <attribute>
        <db:refpurpose>Any attribute, including any attribute in any namespace.</db:refpurpose>
        <anyName/>
      </attribute>
    </define>

which doesn't satisfy the RELAX NG grammar. (Because, I think, the
nameClass is expected to come before the foreign element.)

It doesn't seem to trouble jing, but ... is this a known bug?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

signed jar for jing?

tara_athan — 2011-10-01T01:41:50

I am trying to implement Jing with Java Webstart, so we can publish a web service with full access to the command line options of Jing.

When Jing resolves uris it looks up the path on the local machine, (even if the uri is an absolute URI and doesn't need that information). This action triggers Java Webstart to require a signature - and the Jing jar is not signed.

Before I file an issue, I thought I would ask if anyone has already re-built the jar including signature?

Of course, ideally the person building the official jar would be the one to sign it, certifying that it doesn't contain hidden evil features.


Thanks, Tara

Which FOSS licence?

Dave Pawson — 2011-08-11T13:08:41

I want to write a schema, which if it were code,
would be gpl (whichever version)

Any suggestions as to which licence I should be using please?


TIA

Strange problem with extending Docbook and choice or interleave

xchaotic — 2011-06-23T22:22:41

Hi everyone.

I have encountered a very strange problem when extending Docbook RelaxNG
schemas.
I use compact syntax.

I define a few new elements, and then I want to allow them in standard
docbook elements, in fact it's an example straight from Docbook's
customisation guide (http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch05.html):

namespace db = "http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" # for simplicity there's
only one namespace  include "docbook.rnc" {    # redefinitions of
DocBook patterns - my custom elements allowed            [(1)]
db.publishing.blocks |= dk.range  }  # new patterns and augmented
patterns             [(2)]
dk.range  =  element range { dk.range.attlist, empty }


When I then try to validate against such schema, "range" element is
allowed, but the standard
db.publishing.blocks from docbook.rnc are not.
The syntax is correct, the namespace doesn't seem to be an issue, I am
validating using oxygen and never had problems before.
Could this somehow be due to incorrect nesting or allowing a certain
pattern twice because of the redefinition?

I have really run out of ideas, so I am hoping someone can help.

Lech

More than one root element?

Greg — 2011-06-07T14:55:44

Hey all,

I haven't found the answer to this:

I'm writing a parser/compiler/validator for RelaxNG Compact.  One thing I can't find in any spec or documentation is whether or not more than one root element is allowed in a schema.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Greg

Validation based on attribute values...

Brian Hayward — 2011-06-07T05:24:43

I'm trying to validate the CableLabs VOD 1.1 Metadata specification.

Here is an example from a sub section of the XML that I am trying to validate:

<Metadata>
<AMS />  <!-- Required element, with attributes - but the attributes
are not pertinent to the discussion -->
<App_Data App="MOD" Name="Type" Value="title"/>  <!-- Required
App_Data entry -->
<App_Data App="MOD" Name="Rating" Value="PG-13"/> <!-- Optional
App_Data entry -->
<App_Data App="MOD" Name="Title" Value="Movie Title"/> <!-- Required
App_Data entry -->
<App_Data App="MOD" Name="Summary_Long" Value="Movie Long
Description"/> <!-- Optional App_Data entry -->
<App_Data App="MOD" Name="MSORating" Value="Age-14"/> <!-- Optional
App_Data entry -->
</Metadata>

So RNG makes it really easy to use the content of "Name" to validate
content of "Value" (length, data type, etc).  This was my first goal
and it was really easy to accomplish.

But I'm having trouble figuring out how to enforce the required vs.
optional for the items above.

The rules are:
* All mandatory App_Data elements must exist in the document
* Any optional App_Data elements can exist in the document
* The order of the App_Data elements is arbitrary.  Optional ones can
interleave with mandatory ones

I've looked at interleave... but can't figure out how I would stack
the oneOrMore with the interleave and the choice parameters to
accomplish the above.

Is it possible with RNG?

Thanks,
Brian