RE: Fw: [emergency] RE: EDXL-HAVE spec questions

[ltincher@evotecinc.com]

I won't be able to look at that for a couple of hours....can you forward
the zipped file to Ka-Ping (copied on my original email)?

Thanks,
Lee

> Lee,
>
>
>
> I would again reinforce to use the schema as the normative source - the
> below items again pertain to the example which is just a snippet and
> should not be used as the source since it was never updated following
> the changes in the schema (#2 below is a good example, TriageCount was
> changed from a complex element to a Type and I agree we should provide
> examples are separate files). In fact, we added a couple of sentences in
> Appendix A, in the Errata to highlight these items. The below questions
> are definitely based on the example and I would ask folks to suggest
> using the examples in the zipped file that I sent a couple of hours ago.
>
>
>
>
> So far, the issue that I see is the Bed Capacity and I agree with David
> W's suggestion to use the Bed Type at the parent level while we work on
> a solution.
>
>
>
> If there are other items, let us discuss when you get a chance.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Sukumar
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Lee Tincher [mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:23 AM
> To: 'Sukumar Dwarkanath'; wllang@shoreland.com; kpy@google.com
> Cc: momander@google.com; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org;
> Denis.Gusty@dhs.gov; bill.kalin@associates.dhs.gov;
> jeff.waters@gmail.com; Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL
> Subject: RE: Fw: [emergency] RE: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/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
>
>
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Sukumar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>