Re: EDXL-HAVE issues found (for review / answer)

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Timothy,

I've copied Gary Ham and Alessandro Triglia in hopes that the 
duplication will draw their attention to this since they specifically 
identified the XLink conflict, and I believe we thought we had resolved 
it. It was, as I recall, the same difficulty for both EDXL-HAVE and 
EDXL-RM, so we will have to review it again.

As you may know, there is an errata coming out for both EDXL-HAVE and 
EDXL-RM, so it would probably be wise to verify that the issue continues 
after these errata have been implemented.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to chase down the <BedType> 
issue. I'm assuming that the issue to which you refer is not the name of 
the subtype: <have:SubCategoryBedType>foo, 
etc.</have:SubCategoryBedType>, but the availability, which appears to 
me to be viable. The parent capacity must be "0" before the subtype can 
be used. I will look at it later.


Cheers,
Rex

Gilmore, Timothy wrote:
>
> 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><Ω>γαμμα</Ω></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: gilmoret@us.saic.com 
> <mailto:gilmoret@us.saic.com>  
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>  
>
>  
>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670