|Re: Duplicate namespace error importing RuleML [message #426166 is a reply to message #426165]
||Wed, 17 December 2008 18:03
| Ed Merks
Registered: July 2009
It should be possible to take redefinitions and simply apply that change
to the original definition. That's how the specification tried to
define the behavior, but the specification also talks about the impact
of redefinition being pervasive without being clear about the "scope" in
which these pervasive changes are visible. Redefinitions are truly
horrible and no matter how hard I try to make them work reasonably, some
other use case comes along with yet another problem, so I've effectively
just given up. I know the Xerces team has a similar opinion on them,
and has similar problems with interpreting them.
Geoff Drake wrote:
> Thanks Ed,
> sorry about the duplicate post, I saw your comment 'Please use the EMF
> newsgroup for asking questions.' and did not read any further.
> This is a problem for us, as we already has a complex schema that uses
> RuleML in a lot of places. I am not sure how easy it would be to
> copy, then redefine the schema as then of course we are no longer
> connected to the original schema and we would have to update our
> version when the standard changes.
> The XSD is not my area so I will have to take this back to the group
> that originally decided to use RuleMl and see where we go from there.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.02226 seconds