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: HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas


After spending some time doing some coding this weekend I noticed something that we may want to address:

1.       HAVE uses xPil which in turn uses xAL and xNL

2.       We included the full schemas for all of these referenced schemas on the OASIS page to download the standards.


I think the problem here is that when I went to implement this the documentation states that we are using a “profile” recommendation to limit the choices for xPil to “maximize interoperability”.  It then goes on to state that <have:Organization> should have the sub-elements OrganizationInformation and OrginizationGeoLocation. 

OrganizationInformation should have the sub-elements as defined in the CIQ standard:

·         OrganisationName

·         OrganisationInfo

·         Addresses

·         ContactNumbers

·         CommentText


It also states that we won’t use georss but will use the gml in the OrganizationGeoLocation Section.

It also refers me to Appendix C which suggests that I refer to the CIQ TC website, and also states that for the purpose of HAVE the naming & location elements are used.  The use of other elements is left to implementation choices


Conformance is defined in the document as:

1.       Validating to the schema

2.       Meets the mandatory requirements of section 3


My concern is that the referenced xPil schemas (and in turn the xAL and xNL) are the FULL SCHEMAS.  There is no restriction in the HAVE schema enforcing our smaller profile of CIQ.  Additionally the reference to the georss namespace or elements was not removed.  Furthermore, the document is somewhat confusing in that it states what elements to use, but then tells the develop that it’s an implementation choice whether to use the other elements or not.  Right now as it stands I can generate an XML document that has a bunch of xPIL fields that we didn’t include in our documentation, but will validate against our schemas.  With the vagueness in the document I could argue that this was an implementation choice and my document is valid according to the conformance section, but I suspect my document may break some systems.


So which is it?  If I am building an XML processor to ingest HAVE documents I need to know what to expect.  If I need to be prepared to handle Accounts, Documents, Revenues, Stocks, etc. as defined in xPIL because some system out there decided that they wanted to do it, that makes HAVE more heavyweight that I think the designers intended.  If indeed we are using a CIQ “profile” we should develop the schema for that profile and post it with the standard and add some more info to our documentation so it isn’t as vague.  I’ll upload my generated sample file as HAVE_FullToSchemaButNotDocument.xml to the TC page so you can check it out.  This example validated against the schemas from our page.  I added in Geo-RSS as well (which will validate if you reference the georss schema)…


Don McGarry

Office: 315-838-2669

Cell: 315-383-1197



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