Our instructor advised us to consider using a single master schema that will define our company data. However I have also seen two other ways schemas are used. Which of the three ways below is the best practice, or is there even another alternative?
--Schema per form
--Schema per form which defines data specific to that form but also "includes" a schema which defines common data that is found on multiple forms (such as address, for example)
The creation of the schema is not usually for Forms. It is usually based on some back end system that will consume the data that the form generates. By using a schema you get the form to generate data that the back end can consume without modification. Because of this usually there is a Master schema that holds all data for the application and forms are created that use subsets of that schema.
This is not to say that you cannot have a schema per form but what I described above is usually what I see in large organizations.
Paul, thank you for your answer. My understanding is that schemas are also needed in workbench when designing your workflow - using process variables and form data and such. I understand that it's much easier to drill down to the particular fields that you need by binding the form to a schema. True?
Easier to use yes but not manditory. In workbench it will show navigation down to the data node then if you know the structure of your form you can navigate the rest youself. This means that the process designer needs to know the structure of the form. In my case that is the same person in your case that might be two completely different people playing diiferent roles.