Subject: Re: [emergency] RE: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
You are correct in all points on the new Errata. I have been in contact with OASIS to get this clarified/fixed ASAP. The PR4 errata does not have many of these errors (but has some other ones)…
All – we need this clarified as soon as we can – this is excessively important to the success of HAVE in the Haiti response.
Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self. - Cyril Connolly
From: Ka-Ping Yee [ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:27 AM
To: Lee Tincher; Bill Lang
Cc: Roni Zeiger; Martin Omander
Subject: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
I've run into a couple of problems with the EDXL specification, and was hoping you could help out?
This is the document I'm using:
(This is the link listed at http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php#edxlhave.)
And this is the XSD schema I'm using:
First, a few things that look like simple typos in the EDXL-HAVE example document (Appendix A):
1. The <xpil:OrganisationInfo> element seems to be in the wrong order. According to the schema, it seems it should appear between <xnl:OrganisationName> and <xpil:Addresses>, not after <xpil:Addresses>. Can you confirm?
2. The example has a <have:TriageCount> element, but there is no such XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it seems that <have:TriageCodeListURN> and <have:TriageCode> should be immediate children of <have:EMSCapacity>. Can you confirm?
3. The example has a <have:Offload> element, but there is no such XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it seems that <have:EMSOffloadStatus> and <have:EMSOffloadMinutes> should be immediate children of <have:EMSAmbulanceStatus>. Can you confirm?
4. The example has a <have:AdultGeneralSugery> element, which I assume is a typographic error and should be <have:AdultGeneralSurgery>. Can you confirm?
Second, though, a more concerning problem with the BedCapacity section (Section 3.2.4):
The text, and example 1, suggest that the <have:BedCapacity> element should contain a (<BedType>, <Capacity>) pair, followed by any number of (<SubCategoryBedType>, <Capacity>) pairs.
However, example 1 doesn't validate. The XSD schema doesn't allow for this structure; it only allows zero or more <BedType> elements, followed by zero or more <SubCategoryBedType> elements, followed by zero or more <Capacity> elements.
I can't figure out how to properly represent or interpret bed capacities in this structure. Can you advise on the correct method? If it is true that this just doesn't work as intended, should we decide to use only <BedType> and avoid the use of <SubCategoryBedType> in the EDXL-HAVE Haiti Profile?
Technical Lead, Google Person Finder