[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE issues found (for review / answer)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [emergency] EDXL-HAVE issues found (for review / answer)
From: "Gilmore, Timothy" <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>
Date: Fri, November 06, 2009 8:15 am
Cc: "Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL" <Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com>, "Rex
One of our engineers has been looking closely at the EDXL-HAVE standard and has some comments / questions:
(1) The XLink schema files distributed by OGC (the Open Geospatial
Consortium) and OASIS conflict. According to , the only present workaround is to edit the schema files locally, which makes me very uncomfortable.
(2) My interpretation of the description of the intention of the <BedType> element conflicts with the schema. The schema is more than happy to accept this snippet in an otherwise valid EDXL-HAVE document:
In particular, I can't reconcile this with the normative constraints of <Capacity> and <SubCategoryBedType> listed in section 3.2.4 of the standard (and with the non-normative diagram in section 3.1). To which <BedType> element(s) and/or <SubCategoryBedType> element(s) do the <Capacity> elements refer?
Note that the example of <SubCategoryBedType> elements on page 27 of the standard is not valid (for several reasons), and therefore of marginal use as an example.
Can these comments / questions get reviewed and answered?
Timothy D. Gilmore | SAICSenior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEPphone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012mobile: 606.219.7882 | email:
firstname.lastname@example.orgP Please consider the environment before printing this email.