Here's the XML validation tool the world is waiting for...

Discussion in 'XML' started by Ramon F Herrera, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. I have tried with some automated file-validation tool, but concluded
    that their approach was fundamentally flawed: You cannot possibly
    generate an schema based on only one XML sample. Not unlike electoral
    polls (or any kind of sampling), the more samples you have, the more
    accurate the result. Yes, I know that at some point you reach
    diminishing returns.

    But I digress...

    Are you folks aware of any such tool? One that takes a whole bunch (I
    have an infinite numbers, can make a widely varied set) of XML files
    and creates their best-fit schema?


    ps: There's a business opportunity...
    Ramon F Herrera, Nov 10, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Never mind, I found something that looks great: Liquid XML Studio.

    Any competing options?

    Ramon F Herrera, Nov 10, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is called grammatical inference (or grammar induction sometimes).
    (Warning: understatement ahead) It is difficult in the general case. All
    you can hope is a "good enough" solution (it looks like you found one).
    There are plenty of scientific opportunities...

    -- Alain.
    Alain Ketterlin, Nov 11, 2012
  4. Ramon F Herrera

    Peter Flynn Guest

    No, you can generate a schema that describes that single document. This
    has been known for a long time, at least since the days of OCLC's Fred
    (using SGML DTDs). If the document is sufficiently representative of its
    type, it is a good starting-point for manual refinement, and saves a lot
    of time on those (rare) occasions when it is necessary.
    For it to be useful, the samples must describe the same type of
    document. Creating the union of TEI and DocBook is probably not useful :)
    If you can infer a sample fragmentary grammar and express it in a
    generalised machine-readable syntax, then you can probably deduce the
    union of multiple instances of other fragments of the same grammar,
    provided they possess sufficient commonality.
    Limited, I would say, but certainly there.

    Peter Flynn, Nov 13, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.