Sukumar – I am sorry but that is only part of the problem.
The following 2 are not about the example – but real world
broken problems in the Schema…
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?
Thanks,
Lee
Better to write for
yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self. - Cyril Connolly
From: Sukumar Dwarkanath
[mailto:sukumar.dwarkanath@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:10 AM
To: wllang@shoreland.com; kpy@google.com; ltincher@evotecinc.com
Cc: momander@google.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org;
Denis.Gusty@dhs.gov; bill.kalin@associates.dhs.gov; jeff.waters@gmail.com;
sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [emergency] RE: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
From the questions, it looks like all the questions pertain
to the example included in the Standard. The sample was provided to illustrate
a few concepts and will not validate. Jeff and I have been working on providing
a package with all the schemas and examples that one will need - I
have attached the zipped file. Both of us have checked and the files do
validate - please let us know if you have any issues.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL
<Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com>
wrote:
-----Original
Message-----
From: Lee Tincher <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
To: 'Ka-Ping Yee' <kpy@google.com>;
'Bill Lang' <wllang@shoreland.com>
CC: 'Roni Zeiger' <zeiger@google.com>;
'Martin Omander' <momander@google.com>;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
<emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>;
'Gusty, Denis' <Denis.Gusty@dhs.gov>;
'William Kalin' <bill.kalin@associates.dhs.gov>
Sent: Mon Mar 01 07:14:01 2010
Subject: [emergency] RE: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
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 <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Cyril_Connolly/>
From: Ka-Ping Yee [mailto:kpy@google.com]
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
|