[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: EDXL-HAVE issues found (for review / answer)
On the BedType element – please refer to page 25 - “If a <Capacity> element is specified, it pertains to the preceding <BedType> or <SubCategoryBedType> element.”
I am not completely sure of your questions – for each BedType, you can specify its <Capacity> – I am not sure where the conflict is – please be more specific. The standard suggests using the <BedCapacity> element to encapsulate BedTypes and its subcategories. As you may be aware, a number of business rules in a standard cannot be enforced by schema only.
From: Gilmore, Timothy
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 | SAIC
Senior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP
phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012
mobile: 606.219.7882 |
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.