[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
There is no need for a CIQ
profile as all optional elements and the extensions needed are for a specific
exchange scenario. The idea of a profile is to define further constraints on
optional elements and definitions as they apply to that intended exchange….so
each profile that is based on a schema that includes CIQ (or any other import
schema) would be different by it’s nature…. The
aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think
- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than
to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill Beattie From: Dwarkanath, Sukumar
- INTL [mailto:Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com] Don, The restrictions on using CIQ were considered to be business rules
and the intention was not create a profile as far as I remember. I am not
against creating a CIQ Profile but if we go down that path, we should consider
requirements across the other standards such as EDXL RM, DE etc. We have dealt
with this particular issue quite a few times and it is a balance – offering
flexibility vs ensuring interoperability. Sukumar From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] All- After spending some time doing some coding this weekend I
noticed something that we may want to address: 1.
HAVE uses xPil which in turn uses xAL and xNL 2.
We included the full schemas for all of these referenced
schemas on the OASIS page to download the standards. I think the problem here is that when I went to implement
this the documentation states that we are using a “profile” recommendation to
limit the choices for xPil to “maximize interoperability”. It then goes
on to state that <have:Organization> should have the sub-elements
OrganizationInformation and OrginizationGeoLocation. OrganizationInformation should have the sub-elements as
defined in the CIQ standard: ·
OrganisationName ·
OrganisationInfo ·
Addresses ·
ContactNumbers ·
CommentText It also states that we won’t use georss but will use the gml
in the OrganizationGeoLocation Section. It also refers me to Appendix C which suggests that I refer
to the CIQ TC website, and also states that for the purpose of HAVE the naming
& location elements are used. The use of other elements is left to implementation
choices. Conformance is defined in the document as: 1.
Validating to the schema 2.
Meets the mandatory requirements of section 3 My concern is that the referenced xPil schemas (and in turn
the xAL and xNL) are the FULL SCHEMAS. There is no restriction in
the HAVE schema enforcing our smaller profile of CIQ. Additionally the
reference to the georss namespace or elements was not removed.
Furthermore, the document is somewhat confusing in that it states what elements
to use, but then tells the develop that it’s an implementation choice whether
to use the other elements or not. Right now as it stands I can generate
an XML document that has a bunch of xPIL fields that we didn’t include in our
documentation, but will validate against our schemas. With the vagueness
in the document I could argue that this was an implementation choice and my
document is valid according to the conformance section, but I suspect my
document may break some systems. So which is it? If I am building an XML processor to
ingest HAVE documents I need to know what to expect. If I need to be
prepared to handle Accounts, Documents, Revenues, Stocks, etc. as defined in
xPIL because some system out there decided that they wanted to do it, that
makes HAVE more heavyweight that I think the designers intended. If
indeed we are using a CIQ “profile” we should develop the schema for that
profile and post it with the standard and add some more info to our
documentation so it isn’t as vague. I’ll upload my generated sample file
as HAVE_FullToSchemaButNotDocument.xml to the TC page so you can check it
out. This example validated against the schemas from our page. I
added in Geo-RSS as well (which will validate if you reference the georss
schema)… Don McGarry Office: 315-838-2669 Cell: 315-383-1197 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]