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
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.