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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL Schema and Test message

That's great, David... thanks!  A few quick notes on first inspection:

* In the enumeration of <messageType> I assume the intended spelling 
is "Response".  (Presumably just typo.)

* Likewise, I think the spellings of the element names should be 
"contentObject", "confidentiality" and "llConfidentiality".  (For 
discussion: might we want to change that last one to 
"lowestConfidentiality" just for readability?)

* For the default namespace I'd suggest we substitute one in the 
OASIS style, like 
"urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:edxl:distribution_1.0".  (Among other 
things, using this URN form might help alleviate any confusion 
between the namespace value and the schema location.)

* Regarding the structure of <contentObject>:  I think our intent, 
eventually, was to rename the CAP <resource> element to 
<contentObject> and reuse this extended structure.  So might it work 
better if the choice were between the explicit, separately-namespaced 
XML (as in this draft, but with the name lower-cased) and the current 
content of <resource> but without the additional wrapper elements? 
(The future effect on CAP would be to allow the in-lining of other 
XML content without having to uuencode it, which strikes me as a good 

* I'm not quite clear on your comment "We need to develop pattern for 
URN"... it appears to be in the context of the <valueListUrn> 
element.  Is an additional restriction needed beyond requiring that 
it be a valid URN?

* Regarding your comments on <targetArea>... I don't think we 
intended to support separate targetings for individual 
<messageElement>s.  The idea, I think, was that the whole message has 
a common targeting, which might be the union of multiple 
<targetArea>s.  So there really wouldn't be any need for a reference 
ID on <targetArea>s.

Again, thanks for all your great input at the meeting and for taking 
the first cut at the schema.  (And I'm throwing the full weight of my 
influence with DTRA behind getting you your funding. ;-) )

- Art

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