[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. ReleasedSchemas
Lee- If you look at some of the later emails I sent out I would disagree. I don’t see an exchange scenario for HAVE where the CIQ elements not covered in the HAVE documentation are needed (Stock Information, Vehicle information, etc.) This was the result of copying the entire xPIL schema. Here is an excerpt of my issue: 1. Our documentation is not clear about using xPIL – It doesn’t constrain the use of xPIL or the use of lists. 2. We just bulk-copied the xPIL xsd and posted it along with HAVE 3. I don’t think someone writing code for EDXL-HAVE should have to write code to parse a Hospital’s stock ticker symbol My original question was regarding 1. whether HAVE really intended to include the entire xPIL schema in the HAVE documents 2. Why the HAVE documentation didn’t match the included xPIL schema 3. Why we didn’t make some form of OrganizationInformation mandatory 4. I wonder if your HAVE system handle everything in the OrganizationInformation in my large sample HAVE message posted to KAVI without crashing and have the ability to reproduce it? I’m guessing that since our documentation totally glazes over the attributes, account, contact number, documents, electronicaddressidentifiers, events, memberships, relationships, recenues, stocks, and vehicles; and that there are numerous elements that can be represented as lists in there that aren’t covered in the HAVE documentation either that the answer may be no, which is not good for interoperability. 5. My sample files has 1982 lines of XML before you even get to the HAVE report. Is that what we really wanted? From: Lee Tincher [mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com] 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]