Re: [emergency-have] XML Schema changes

[rexbroo <rexb@starbourne.com>]

My notes inline below.

On 5/10/2017 6:46 PM, Darrell O'Donnell wrote:

I did a quick review of the schema changes that we had made last week. There were 2 sets of substantive changes (one of which I will roll back from):

• complexType OffloadType had a set of elements that are really more appropriate to be captured as a StatusType. This change should stick - we discussed it today.
• A large number of <xs:simpleType> elements had *Kind (e.g. OfflioadStateKind) naming and I had renamed them all to be *Type (e.g. OffloadStateType). We discussed living with *Kind so I will roll these changes back.

Good.

NOTE: There are a few structural items that we need to consider:

1. We do have a whacky type name in here that I have a question about.

<xs:simpleType name="FacilityKindType">

Here's my problem. It is a xs:simpleType so should have a *Kind naming. BUT - the type is intended to answer the question "what Kind of Facility is this?".

I think we should name it Kind for the sake of as much consistency as we can manage without making ourselves too crazy about it.

2. Extensions - we need to decide if the ext:extension concept is to be used.

Yes ,we need to keep t for consistency with the TC/rim policy about including extension mechanism in all our EDXL specs, moving forward from the point a few years ago when we decided this. Note" this was decided at a time when I was relatively inactive and I didn't favor it, but was on the losing side in that particular debate. C'est la vie.

cheers,

Darrell

Thanks Darrell, it's good to keep up to date on these issues and I appreciate your thoroughness.
Cheers,
Rex

-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
GeoAddress:
1361 Addison St. Apt. A
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670 

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com