2008/9/22 Ian Mayo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi all, > I'm aspiring to use atom:category elements in a number of schemes to > define a series of attributes of my data items, as espoused at: > http://www.majordojo.com/2006/05/overloading-atomcategory.php > > I'm relatively comfortable with the representation of privacy and > security via scheme, term, and label, but am stumbling at the > challenge of representing these concepts in a schema. It appears that > XSD isn't able to define a set of valid terms for one scheme, with > another set that are only valid in association with another scheme. > Having had a look around at various specifications based on Atom > (including the Google data ones), they don't go as far as defining a > computer-readable schema, they stop at the human-readable schema (as > for the Atom spec). > > Would somebody mind giving me an idea of why it appears to have become > acceptable to define these data-exchange mechanisms just using a > human-readable format that can't be enforced by computer? For a > system involving the exchange of data using an Atom-derived format, > the lack of a computer-enforceable schema seems a real handicap. > > I welcome advice in this matter. > > cheers, > Ian
The spec comes with a RNG schema [1], which AFAIK is computer-readable? For instance, Jing can be used [2]. Cheers, James [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#appendix-B [2] http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html
