I hear from Balint that the current version of QCDml schema is
valid under xmlspy, but is not valid under W3C definition.
(I don't understand what is the problem so that my terminology
may be wrong.) May I ask Balint (or someone else) explain the
problem briefly in a separate mail?
((T.Yoshie, 2005 Nov 15))
Not quite. The schema is not valid under the WC3 definition due to the way I
have constructed the inheritance of actionTypes. XMLspy has a validation
tool, which only works in certain "views" when using the tool. The nice
visual UML gui has a validation option, but it doesn't really test anything.
I have confirmed with XMLspy that the validation tool is only to be used in
the plain text view. I was caught out there, sorry ;^(.
             I believe that I can make a new schema which is very similar to
the 1.1.
such that the inheritance of types *is* valid which shouldn't change the
substitution groups and hence the elements of an QCDml ID shouldn't have to
change. I am working on this in XMLspy2006 which is better than XMLspy5, but
I haven't completed this yet, and I may be wrong. Other peoples input
appreciated.
(( C. Maynard 2005-11-15))
This is certainly an important (and time consuming) cleanup which needs
to done. But pending modifications which block physics group willing to
mark-up their configurations should receive higher priority.
((D. Pleiter, 2005-11-15))
I'm happy to hear from Chris that Chris has already started working on
this issue. Of course we can wait. I hope this problem is solved in a
way that we don't have to change QCDml IDs.
I also agree Dirk's point. Let us continue to add necessary actions
into the current version of QCDml schema.
((T. Yoshie, 2005-11-17))