My suggestion is to fix this error immediately, before it's approved as a CS. The stand-alone schema has precedence over the one printed in the spec; that doesn't mean you shouldn't fix it however. If the change is deemed substantive an errata can't be used to fix the error.
Regards,
Mary
On Jan 27, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Gilmore, Timothy wrote:
All,
The CAP Public Review Draft 02 dated 29 September 2009 [0] contains a schema in section 3.4. Call this the "schema in the document." The document claims that Section 3 is normative, and there is no exception noted for the schema.
OASIS also provides that schema separately in [1] and [2]. Call each these identical schemata the "free-standing schema."
Unfortunately, the schema in the document is different from the free-standing schema. In addition to a host of insignificant whitespace
changes:
(a) the types of the <altitude> and <ceiling> elements are different (xs:string in the free-standing schema vs. xs:decimalstring in the schema in the document; note that decimalstring is not part of the XML standard schema definition); and
(b) the <mimeType> element is optional in the schema in the document and required in the free-standing schema
So which schema is correct and/or normative, and will OASIS fix this problem when CAP v1.2 moves from Public Review Draft status to Standard status?
We would like to use the free-standing schema (draft), but is this correct?
[0] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2.html
[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2.xsd
[2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/pr02/CAP-v1.2-PR02.xsd
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.
