OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

I've seen a few comments on the ongoing ballot to certify that our schemas are well-formed/valid, etc. Before I voted I wanted to do my due diligence. I'd like to share what I did so anyone who wishes to confirm these tests or run a complimentary test can do so. ODF 1.2 includes 3 RNG schema files and 2 OWL ontologies. The ISO Relax NG standard comes with a normative schema (in Relax NG format) that can be used to validate RNG schemas. You can get this from the standard itself ( http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c037605_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2003 (E).zip ) or, as I did, accompanying an RNG validator like James Clark's jing. I downloaded jing: http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html Then I unzipped it into a directory, and validated the 3 ODF 1.2 schemas, with the following commands and echoed output: C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-schema.rng Elapsed time 766+141=907 milliseconds C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-dsig-schema.rng Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-manifest-schema.rng Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds No errors or warnings were reported. For the 2 OWL ontologies, I used an online validator: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator I pasted in each of our files, and validated it against "OWL Full". Again, no errors or warnings. Although one could imagine a fun rainy day where we then go on recursively to validate the RelaxNG.rng against itself, and verify the EBNF of the W3C's XML 1.0 Rec, I think this would be pointless. So I'll stop here. This is enough for me to cast my vote. -Rob

On 6 April 2011 19:11, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote: > I've seen a few comments on the ongoing ballot to certify that our schemas > are well-formed/valid, etc.  Before I voted I wanted to do my due > diligence.  I'd like to share what I did so anyone who wishes to confirm > these tests or run a complimentary test can do so. > > ODF 1.2 includes 3 RNG schema files and 2 OWL ontologies. > > The ISO Relax NG standard comes with a normative schema (in Relax NG > format) that can be used to validate RNG schemas.  You can get this from > the standard itself ( > http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c037605_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2003 (E).zip > ) or, as I did, accompanying an RNG validator like James Clark's jing. > > I downloaded jing:   http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html Try https://code.google.com/p/jing-trang/ More up to date. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 04/06/2011 02:24:24 PM: > > Try > https://code.google.com/p/jing-trang/ > > More up to date. > Thanks. I tried that version and also no errors. I looked a bit more on the OWL side, to see if I could find a more official validator in addition to that 3rd party validator. The closest I found was the W3C's RDF Validation Service, and I checked our ontologies against that: http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ No errors or warnings. -Rob

Thanks for providing this, Rob. I think the only other cases would be any XML fragments in the specification documents themselves. I think "expressions" was being used in the OASIS document to refer to cases where there is source code or formulas of some sort. This might apply to some places in the specification as well, with OpenFormula being a likely place to check for expressions. Also, the places where BNF or some form of regular expression is used would also be candidates for review. I'll see if I can duplicate your checks, just for fun. - Dennis
Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [ mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com ] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:12 To: office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office] Checking validity of ODF 1.2 Schemas I've seen a few comments on the ongoing ballot to certify that our schemas are well-formed/valid, etc. Before I voted I wanted to do my due diligence. I'd like to share what I did so anyone who wishes to confirm these tests or run a complimentary test can do so. ODF 1.2 includes 3 RNG schema files and 2 OWL ontologies. The ISO Relax NG standard comes with a normative schema (in Relax NG format) that can be used to validate RNG schemas. You can get this from the standard itself ( http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c037605_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2003 (E).zip ) or, as I did, accompanying an RNG validator like James Clark's jing. I downloaded jing: http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html Then I unzipped it into a directory, and validated the 3 ODF 1.2 schemas, with the following commands and echoed output: C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-schema.rng Elapsed time 766+141=907 milliseconds C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-dsig-schema.rng Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-manifest-schema.rng Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds No errors or warnings were reported. For the 2 OWL ontologies, I used an online validator: http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator I pasted in each of our files, and validated it against "OWL Full". Again, no errors or warnings. Although one could imagine a fun rainy day where we then go on recursively to validate the RelaxNG.rng against itself, and verify the EBNF of the W3C's XML 1.0 Rec, I think this would be pointless. So I'll stop here. This is enough for me to cast my vote. -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 04/06/2011 02:48:11 PM: > > RE: [office] Checking validity of ODF 1.2 Schemas > > Thanks for providing this, Rob. > > I think the only other cases would be any XML fragments in the > specification documents themselves. > > I think "expressions" was being used in the OASIS document to refer > to cases where there is source code or formulas of some sort. This > might apply to some places in the specification as well, with > OpenFormula being a likely place to check for expressions. Also, > the places where BNF or some form of regular expression is used > would also be candidates for review. > > I'll see if I can duplicate your checks, just for fun. > I suspect the RNG stuff is pretty clean now. We've been using it for validating text files, code generation for the ODF Toolkit, etc. for some time now. Of course, there is always the possibility that there was a last minute stray character dropped in while doing a cut & paste or something. So always worth checking. The OWL stuff has seen less use, as far as I can tell, and it is something the TC has less experience with. So that is certainly worth a look. Without a definition of "expression" and what "validity" means with respect to an expression, I cannot make sense of that other requirement. Elsewhere in the same requirement "well-formed" and "valid" are used in their formal XML senses. So it is odd to extend them to non-XML constructs and silently slip in the undefined concept of a "valid expression". For example, my impression was that grammatically correct EBNF grammars were termed "well-formed", not "valid". In any case, I think the intent is that formal notations we use be grammatically correct with respect to the formal grammars that we claim the expressions are governed by. -Rob > - Dennis > >
Original Message----- > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [ mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:12 > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [office] Checking validity of ODF 1.2 Schemas > > I've seen a few comments on the ongoing ballot to certify that our > schemas are well-formed/valid, etc. Before I voted I wanted to do > my due diligence. I'd like to share what I did so anyone who wishes > to confirm these tests or run a complimentary test can do so. > > ODF 1.2 includes 3 RNG schema files and 2 OWL ontologies. > > The ISO Relax NG standard comes with a normative schema (in Relax NG > format) that can be used to validate RNG schemas. You can get this > from the standard itself ( http://standards.iso.org/ittf/ > PubliclyAvailableStandards/c037605_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2003(E).zip > ) or, as I did, accompanying an RNG validator like James Clark's jing. > > I downloaded jing: http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html > > Then I unzipped it into a directory, and validated the 3 ODF 1.2 > schemas, with the following commands and echoed output: > > C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/ > OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-schema.rng > Elapsed time 766+141=907 milliseconds > > C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/ > OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-dsig-schema.rng > Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds > > C:ODF12Schemas>java -jar ./bin/jing.jar -t lib/relaxng.rng odf12/ > OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-manifest-schema.rng > Elapsed time 265+63=328 milliseconds > > No errors or warnings were reported. > > For the 2 OWL ontologies, I used an online validator: > http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator > > I pasted in each of our files, and validated it against "OWL Full". > Again, no errors or warnings. > > Although one could imagine a fun rainy day where we then go on > recursively to validate the RelaxNG.rng against itself, and verify > the EBNF of the W3C's XML 1.0 Rec, I think this would be pointless. > So I'll stop here. > This is enough for me to cast my vote. > > -Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >