ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
DTDs versus XML schema: a practical study
Full text PdfPdf (275 KB)
Source WebDB; Vol. 67 archive
Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on the Web and Databases: colocated with ACM SIGMOD/PODS 2004 table of contents
Paris, France
SESSION: Paper session 6: XML schemas and validation table of contents
Pages: 79 - 84  
Year of Publication: 2004
Authors
Geert Jan Bex  Limburgs Universitair Centrum, Diepenbeek, Belgium
Frank Neven  Limburgs Universitair Centrum, Diepenbeek, Belgium
Jan Van den Bussche  Limburgs Universitair Centrum, Diepenbeek, Belgium
Sponsor
: INRIA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 112,   Citation Count: 20
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1017074.1017095
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Among the various proposals answering the shortcomings of Document Type Definitions (DTDs), XML Schema is the most widely used. Although DTDs and XML Schema Definitions (XSDs) differ syntactically, they are still quite related on an abstract level. Indeed, freed from all syntactic sugar, XML Schemas can be seen as an extension of DTDs with a restricted form of specialization. In the present paper, we inspect a number of DTDs and XSDs harvested from the web and try to answer the following questions: (1) which of the extra features/expressiveness of XML Schema not allowed by DTDs are effectively used in practice; and, (2) how sophisticated are the structural properties (i.e. the nature of regular expressions) of the two formalisms. It turns out that at present real-world XSDs only sparingly use the new features introduced by XML Schema: on a structural level the vast majority of them can already be defined by DTDs. Further, we introduce a class of simple regular expressions and obtain that a surprisingly high fraction of the content models belong to this class. The latter result sheds light on the justification of simplifying assumptions that sometimes have to be made in XML research.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
P. Biron and A. Malhotra. XML Schema part 2: datatypes. W3C, May 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
 
2
T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, E. Maler, and F. Yergeau. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. W3C, 3 edition, February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/
 
3
 
4
A. Brüggemann-Klein, M. Murata, and D. Wood. Regular tree languages over non-ranked alphabets (draft 1). Unpublished manuscript, 1998.
 
5
B. Choi. What are real DTDs like? In Proceedings WebDB 2002, pages 43--48, 2002.
 
6
J. Clark. TREX - Tree Regular Expressions for XML: language specification, February 2001, http://www.thaiopensource.com/trex/spec.html
 
7
J. Clark and M. Murata. RELAX NG Specification. OASIS, December 2001, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/spec-20011203.html
 
8
R. Cover. The cover pages, 2003, http://xml.coverpages.org/
 
9
D. Fallside. XML Schema part 0: primer. W3C, May 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
 
10
IBM corp. XML Schema Quality Checker, 2003. http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmlsqc
 
11
A. Møller. Document Structure Description 2.0. BRICS, 2003, http://www.brics.dk/DSD/dsd2.pdf
 
12
M. Murata. Document description and processing languages - regular language description for XML (RELAX): Part 1: RELAX core. Technical report, ISO/IEC, May 2001.
13
 
14
W. Martens, F. Neven and T. Schwentick Complexity of Decision Problems for Simple Regular Expressions. Submitted.
15
 
16
 
17
H. Thompson, D. Beech, M. Maloney, and N. Mendelsohn. XML Schema part 1: structures. W3C, May 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/
 
18
E. van der Vliet. XML Schema. O'Reilly, Cambridge, 2002.

CITED BY  20
Collaborative Colleagues:
Geert Jan Bex: colleagues
Frank Neven: colleagues
Jan Van den Bussche: colleagues