[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
I agree that we can define a way
ahead – but the challenge would definitely be large enough that we will not
solve it in just a few meetings….I am smelling a HAVE 1.1 or 2.0 effort….given
what we learned from the Haiti response I think the timing is very good…..Although
I suspect we will learn some more from Chili as well… Thanks, Lee The
aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think
- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than
to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill Beattie From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] Lee…consider yourself forgiven J…Yes
that’s exactly what I’m saying! I don’t think this will be too big of a
task…Perhaps we can figure out the best way ahead at the TC meeting this week? From: Lee Tincher
[mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com] OK – I think I am starting to
come up to speed here (forgive me – I’ve been away for 9 days and I am playing
catch-up)….so in a future release of HAVE you would promote that we actually
“Profile” CIQ to cover what we think would really be useful? That
is very interesting and I think we should really get together and delve into
this…. Thanks, Lee The
aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think
- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than
to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill Beattie From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] It’s not that you MUST use every
element/attribute, but the fact that you CAN. Too much flexibility leads
to more lines of code to process parts of a message that MAY be there, but
probably never will. We are only using xPIL for a standard representation
of the parts that we need. I don’t think we need the entire xPIL spec,
and I think it makes HAVE bloated by including a bunch of optional stuff that
is unnecessary. You can restrict the schema by modifying it without
breaking it, you just use what you need and remove the rest. Since
everything in xPIL is optional this isn’t a problem. On the point of #5…you don’t
NEED every aspect of xPIL to get HAVE…and it’s not about validating…my example
validates too. The point of the example is to show what happens when
someone fills in all the possible fields in a message. If you are
building the system that processes one of these messages (not just putting it up
on a webpage) you need to write code to handle all those fields. I think
that’s bloated and unnecessary for what HAVE is trying to do. From: Lee Tincher
[mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com] I guess I don’t understand why
including a full schema (which you would have to in order to achieve validity)
means you have to use every element/attribute…. It seems that the flexibility
intended by the optional elements and definitions of xPIL would be ignored if
we did not include the schema….and I would think you can’t modify the Schema
without breaking the standard unless you just included all of the mandatory
elements and relationships and ignore the optional ones. The #5 below is the hardest for
me to absorb – why would you need every aspect of xPIL to get to HAVE? I
have done thousands of HAVE exchanges without that problem… and they all
validate… Thanks, Lee The
aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think
- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than
to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill Beattie From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] Lee- If you look at some of the later
emails I sent out I would disagree. I don’t see an exchange scenario for
HAVE where the CIQ elements not covered in the HAVE documentation are needed
(Stock Information, Vehicle information, etc.) This was the result
of copying the entire xPIL schema. Here is an excerpt of my issue: 1. Our documentation is not clear about using xPIL – It
doesn’t constrain the use of xPIL or the use of lists. 2. We just bulk-copied the xPIL xsd and posted it along
with HAVE 3. I don’t think someone writing code for EDXL-HAVE
should have to write code to parse a Hospital’s stock ticker symbol My original question was regarding 1. whether HAVE really intended to include the entire
xPIL schema in the HAVE documents 2. Why the HAVE documentation didn’t match the included
xPIL schema 3. Why we didn’t make some form of
OrganizationInformation mandatory 4. I wonder if your HAVE system handle everything in the
OrganizationInformation in my large sample HAVE message posted to KAVI without
crashing and have the ability to reproduce it? I’m guessing that since
our documentation totally glazes over the attributes, account, contact number,
documents, electronicaddressidentifiers, events, memberships, relationships,
recenues, stocks, and vehicles; and that there are numerous elements that can
be represented as lists in there that aren’t covered in the HAVE documentation
either that the answer may be no, which is not good for interoperability. 5. My sample files has 1982 lines of XML before you even
get to the HAVE report. Is that what we really wanted? From: Lee Tincher
[mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com] There is no need for a CIQ
profile as all optional elements and the extensions needed are for a specific
exchange scenario. The idea of a profile is to define further constraints
on optional elements and definitions as they apply to that intended
exchange….so each profile that is based on a schema that includes CIQ (or any
other import schema) would be different by it’s nature…. The
aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think
- rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than
to load the memory with thoughts of other men. ~Bill Beattie From: Dwarkanath, Sukumar
- INTL [mailto:Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com] Don, The restrictions on using CIQ were considered to be business rules
and the intention was not create a profile as far as I remember. I am not
against creating a CIQ Profile but if we go down that path, we should consider
requirements across the other standards such as EDXL RM, DE etc. We have dealt
with this particular issue quite a few times and it is a balance – offering
flexibility vs ensuring interoperability. Sukumar From: McGarry, Donald P.
[mailto:dmcgarry@mitre.org] All- 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]