← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
EDXL-HAVE issues found (for review / answer)
One of our engineers has been looking closely at the EDXL-HAVE standard and has some comments / questions: (1) The XLink schema files distributed by OGC (the Open Geospatial Consortium) and OASIS conflict. According to [0], the only present workaround is to edit the schema files locally, which makes me very uncomfortable. (2) My interpretation of the description of the intention of the <BedType> element conflicts with the schema. The schema is more than happy to accept this snippet in an otherwise valid EDXL-HAVE document: <have:BedCapacity> <have:BedType>MedicalSurgical</have:BedType> <have:BedType>OtherIsolation</have:BedType> <have:BedType>NurseryBeds</have:BedType> <have:SubCategoryBedType>foo, etc.</have:SubCategoryBedType> <have:SubCategoryBedType><Ù>ãáììá</Ù></have:SubCategoryBedType> <have:Capacity> <have:CapacityStatus>Vacant/Available</have:CapacityStatus> <have:AvailableCount>20</have:AvailableCount> <have:BaselineCount>30</have:BaselineCount> </have:Capacity> <have:Capacity> <have:CapacityStatus>NotAvailable</have:CapacityStatus> <have:AvailableCount>999</have:AvailableCount> </have:Capacity> </have:BedCapacity> In particular, I can't reconcile this with the normative constraints of <Capacity> and <SubCategoryBedType> listed in section 3.2.4 of the standard (and with the non-normative diagram in section 3.1). To which <BedType> element(s) and/or <SubCategoryBedType> element(s) do the <Capacity> elements refer? Note that the example of <SubCategoryBedType> elements on page 27 of the standard is not valid (for several reasons), and therefore of marginal use as an example. Can these comments / questions get reviewed and answered? Thanks, Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC Senior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012 mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread