I thought we said contract was one thing, but contract list was 0-many? It’s interesting that is used to be type contract, but was changed somewhere along the line to string.
Also, I have a delivery and service tech visit tomorrow, so I probably will miss the ‘workshop’ call.
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Toby Considine
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:38 PM
To:
Subject: [obix] Schema Changes for OBIX
Based on the last three meetings, I propose changing the XSD definition of “contract” as follows:
<xs:simpleType
name="contract">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
This is a contractList, i.e., 0-many URIs. In XSD, it is a string because the collection of URIs follows special serialization rules, i.e., URIs are space separated, and the zero length list is specified as "nil", See the specification for details.</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:restriction
base="xs:string"/>
</xs:simpleType>
If this is acceptable, then IS should be changed to be of type “contract” from the type “string” that it is now.
Perhaps the same applied to “in” and “out”
Is this correct?
tc
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
– George Bernard Shaw.
Toby Considine
TC9, Inc.
Phone: (919)619-2104
http://www.tc9.com
Chair, OASIS OBIX Technical Committee
Chair, OASIS WS-Calendar Technical Committee
Editor, OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) Editor, OASIS Energy Interoperation
blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com
