Sukumar,
That’s exactly what we did (with an interspersing of
<comment> tags as well)…The problem is in the definition of the Value
Name vs. the Value – we just used an “=” sign – but that means coders have more
work to do outside of XML Parsers.
The <ParameterName> <Value> keyword concept used in
CAP, DE, RM and SitReps would have been much easier to deal with…maybe a
consideration for the next release?
I have attached the DRAFT that we have been using – it is only a
Draft so please do not pass this around outside of OASIS….it includes a sample
XML at the end…
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: Dwarkanath, Sukumar
- INTL [mailto:Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 8:51 AM
To: ltincher@evotecinc.com; dmcgarry@mitre.org;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
Lee,
This is good feedback and will be helpful - I am sure you have already looked
at it, but ResourcesInformationText was added as a flexible alternative and can
be used for most of the items in the short term.
Thanks
Sukumar
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Tincher <ltincher@evotecinc.com>
To: 'McGarry, Donald P.' <dmcgarry@mitre.org>; Dwarkanath, Sukumar -
INTL; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sun Mar 14 17:22:17 2010
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
Slightly off topic – but I think relevant to this discussion…I would like to
see some placements of the “keyword” concept into HAVE to better handle
extension of existing lists and ability of new Managed Lists. Below is a
bulleted list of items we found necessary to support the Haiti Relief
efforts…another problem is that in a disaster we are primarily dealing with
“Health Facilities” and not just Hospitals (e.g. Clinics, Damaged/Partially
operating facilities, Tent or MASH style units, converted elderly care
facilities….)
In addition specific desires for information not included in the HAVE
specification was determined. These included:
· Information Blood
Products
· Information on Ancillary
Services
· Information on Laboratory
Services
· Information on Pharmacy
Services
· Status and capacity
information on Rehab Services
· Accessibility by Road
· 24/7 Emergency Room
capabilities
· Adult Ventilator capabilities
and availability
· Pediatric Ventilator
capabilities and availability
· General Medicine capabilities
· Is there adequate Nursing
staff?
· Number of available skilled
Nurses
· Are there adequate Medical
Providers (available physicians and mid-level)?
· Number of available Medical
Providers
· Are there adequate Surgical
Teams?
· Number of available Surgical
Teams
· Structural Damage?
· Water Shortage?
· Power Shortage?
· Comments on demographic
information
· Previously reported
demographics information is confirmed?
· Internet Access Available?
· Email Available?
· Phone Service Available?
In addition further restrictions apply to the following HAVE elements:
· HospitalStatus/Hospital/Organization/Addresses
this is free text, but to specify the the "Seccion Communal" use
"Seccion= [Name of Seccion Communal]"
·
HospitalStatus/Hospital/Organization/OrganizationInformation/Addresses/AdministrativeArea/SubAdministrativeArea
Use "Commune= [Commune Name]"
·
HospitalStatus/Hospital/Organization/OrganizationInformation/Addresses/AdministrativeArea/SubAdministrativeArea
Use "Arrondissement= [Arrondissement Name]"
·
HospitalStatus/Hospital/Organization/OrganizationInformation/Addresses/AdministrativeArea/NameElement
"[Department Name]"
·
HospitalStatus/Hospital/Organization/OrganizationGeoLocation/gml:point/gml:pos
restricted to 4 decimal places
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]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:54 PM
To: Lee Tincher; 'Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
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.
-Don
Office: 315-838-2669
Cell: 315-383-1197
dmcgarry@mitre.org
From: Lee Tincher [mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:45 PM
To: McGarry, Donald P.; 'Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL';
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
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]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:26 PM
To: Lee Tincher; 'Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
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?
-Don
Office: 315-838-2669
Cell: 315-383-1197
dmcgarry@mitre.org
From: Lee Tincher [mailto:ltincher@evotecinc.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:39 PM
To: 'Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL'; McGarry, Donald P.;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
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]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:08 AM
To: McGarry, Donald P.; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released
Schemas
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]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:31 AM
To: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency] HAVE Conformance vs. Documentation vs. Released Schemas
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
dmcgarry@mitre.org