Just for the record (though it only really confirms the point that there are
differing interpretations), I implemented the XSD 1.0 specification without
the benefit of knowing anything about the intent of the WG beyond what was
written in the spec, and I came to the conclusion that there was only one
way of interpreting the rule about xsd:redefine being "pervasive". But then
I also came to the conclusion that other parts of the schema composition
rules had to be treated as loose statements of intent which didn't cover all
contingencies.
 
I would certainly advise against using xs:redefine in an industry schema
specification. Its only possible justification in my view is to define a
variant of a schema produced by a third party. And for that use case, I
think it only works unambiguously if that schema uses a single target
namespace throughout.

Michael Kay
Saxonica

  _____  

From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On
Behalf Of XMLSchema at XML4Pharma
Sent: 29 September 2009 12:24
To: xmlschema-dev@w...
Subject: Escalation mechanism for different interpretation of W3C XML-Schema
specification ?


We, the CDISC XML-Tech Governance Team (and other CDISC teams) have
developed a number of extensible standards for exchange of clinical data and
for submitting information to the regulatory authorities (FDA).

CDISC is a Standardization Organization active in the healthcare world.

Our extension mechanism is based on the "import" and "redefine" elements of
XML-Schema.

We now have a serious dispute with one technology vendor (Altova) about the
way "import" and "redefine" are used. Instance files of one of our
extensions (so-called "define.xml") validate well in all major validators
and XML-editors, except for the products of this one vendor.

When confronted with this result, the reaction of Altova essentially is that
"Altova is right, all others are wrong". The dispute and discussion with
Altova can be followed at:
http://www.altova.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts
<http://www.altova.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1000005665>
&m=1000005665

The issue were not so serious if it were not that our standard "define.xml"
is a standard for submission of information to the regulatory authorities,
and these are (mostly) using the Altova product for validation.

We now want to escalate the issue to the W3C itself, and would like to know
what the mechanism is to do so.

Jozef Aerts
CDISC XML-Tech Governance Team