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: CAP v1.2 schema(s) issue



The CAP Public Review Draft 02 dated 29 September 2009 [0] contains a schema in section 3.4.  Call this the "schema in the document."  The document claims that Section 3 is normative, and there is no exception noted for the schema.


OASIS also provides that schema separately in [1] and [2].  Call each these identical schemata the "free-standing schema."


Unfortunately, the schema in the document is different from the free-standing schema.  In addition to a host of insignificant whitespace



(a) the types of the <altitude> and <ceiling> elements are different (xs:string in the free-standing schema vs. xs:decimalstring in the schema in the document; note that decimalstring is not part of the XML standard schema definition); and


(b) the <mimeType> element is optional in the schema in the document and required in the free-standing schema


So which schema is correct and/or normative, and will OASIS fix this problem when CAP v1.2 moves from Public Review Draft status to Standard status? 


We would like to use the free-standing schema (draft), but is this correct?



[0] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2.html

[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2.xsd

[2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/pr02/CAP-v1.2-PR02.xsd





Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC

Senior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP

phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012

mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com  

P Please consider the environment before printing this email.


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