OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-have message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: HAVE 2.0 - Schema Discussion today 16:00 (4pm!)

Fellow HAVE members:

As a goal of getting a lot done in a very short period of time I'd like you to consider the following two items in our conversation this afternoon (16:00 EDT 1-800-320-4330 #247135). 

These are two high-level schema topics that really need attention before I can go much further with the remaining XSD work that I believe is required. 

If you can't make it to the meeting (planning on 10-20 minutes) I'd appreciate it if you could look at the attached and consider the following two concepts.

ServicesType/ServicesList Concept

The ServicesType/ServicesList concept (p. 35 of schema doc) is something that attempts to allow a customized, but managed, list of Services that are tracked. This allow separation of the Schema for HAVE 2.0 and the list data, which can be managed elsewhere. There would be a HAVE 1.0 list for backwards compatibility but other organizations would be able to create new lists. The intent here is that an organization would create a managed list and many HAVE adopters would point at it and use it. Further an organization may need to supper multiple lists (e.g. Mandated list that is formal and managed; and a "new services I am tracking" list that is informal).

What I think needs to be established is the following:
  • is the concept clear enough?
  • Does the extensibility concept work?

ListExtension Concept

The ListExtension concept (p. 71 of schema doc) is intended to provide the ability to support different data types in an extensible list. I'm not certain about the provenance of this capability. I understand the concept, but it feels a bit too abstract in that developers working to support this concept may have some difficulty - enough that I am concerned that it won't be used. 

Does anyone have background information on where this concept came from? I can see the valueName/value pair concept that is used often in CAP (and abused in CAP). I would like to understand the initial intent as well so I can wrap my head around this as well.

Thanks everyone.



[see attached file: edxl-have2.1DRAFT_v0.6.pdf]
Darrell O'Donnell, P.Eng.

Attachment: edxl-have2.1DRAFT_v0.6.pdf
Description: edxl-have2.1DRAFT_v0.6.pdf

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]