Ka-Ping,
You are correct in all points on the new Errata. I have been in
contact with OASIS to get this clarified/fixed ASAP. The PR4 errata does not
have many of these errors (but has some other ones)…
All – we need this clarified as soon as we can – this is
excessively important to the success of HAVE in the Haiti response.
Thanks,
Lee
Better to write for
yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self. - Cyril Connolly
From: Ka-Ping Yee
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:27 AM
To: Lee Tincher; Bill Lang
Cc: Roni Zeiger; Martin Omander
Subject: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
Hello Lee,
I've run into a couple of problems with the EDXL
specification, and was hoping you could help out?
This is the document I'm using:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-have/os/emergency_edxl_have-1.0-spec-os.pdf
(This is the link listed at http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php#edxlhave.)
And this is the XSD schema I'm using:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-have/os/edxl-have-os.xsd
First, a few things that look like simple typos in the
EDXL-HAVE example document (Appendix A):
1. The <xpil:OrganisationInfo> element seems to be in
the wrong order. According to the schema, it seems it should appear
between <xnl:OrganisationName> and <xpil:Addresses>, not after
<xpil:Addresses>. Can you confirm?
2. The example has a <have:TriageCount> element, but
there is no such XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it
seems that <have:TriageCodeListURN> and <have:TriageCode> should be
immediate children of <have:EMSCapacity>. Can you confirm?
3. The example has a <have:Offload> element, but there
is no such XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it seems
that <have:EMSOffloadStatus> and <have:EMSOffloadMinutes> should be
immediate children of <have:EMSAmbulanceStatus>. Can you confirm?
4. The example has a <have:AdultGeneralSugery>
element, which I assume is a typographic error and should be
<have:AdultGeneralSurgery>. Can you confirm?
Second, though, a more concerning problem with the
BedCapacity section (Section 3.2.4):
The text, and example 1, suggest that the
<have:BedCapacity> element should contain a (<BedType>,
<Capacity>) pair, followed by any number of (<SubCategoryBedType>,
<Capacity>) pairs.
However, example 1 doesn't validate. The XSD schema
doesn't allow for this structure; it only allows zero or more <BedType>
elements, followed by zero or more <SubCategoryBedType> elements,
followed by zero or more <Capacity> elements.
I can't figure out how to properly represent or interpret
bed capacities in this structure. Can you advise on the correct method?
If it is true that this just doesn't work as intended, should we decide
to use only <BedType> and avoid the use of <SubCategoryBedType> in
the EDXL-HAVE Haiti Profile?
Many thanks!
— Ping
Technical Lead, Google Person Finder
