Comments on EDXL-DE 2.0 Nov 2011 Candidate

Comments on 
EDXL-DE 2.0 Candidate of Nov., 2011

Glenn 
Pearson, US National Library of Medicine

Disclaimer:  Comments here 
are mine, and do not represent the position of NLM or any 
part therein.

To the 
TC:

Nice 
improvements, particularly with respect to target areas and distribution 
references.

A skim 
of this document raised these concerns:

·         
What’s the recommended way for a 
receiving system to distinguish between DE 1.0 and 2.0 messages, assuming a 
common input channel?

·         
The “ct:” namespace is referenced 
long before it is defined (other than a page 7 ref to “EDXL-CT”).  Consider moving some version of the 
content in section 3.2.10 to the beginning of the Data Dictionary.

·         
I suspect the XLink feature 
will solve the problem about 
how to tie related content objects & descriptions together, but 
what we have here as description is both repetitive (almost-the-same paragraph 
many times in Data Dictionary Comments) and opaque.  How about just having a separate 
section, that gives actual examples of how, say, 3 EDXL-embedded items can be grouped with this 
mechanism?

·         
How to use the default list 
mechanism was not indicated in the DOM diagram, nor described generally, nor 
easily discerned from the Data Dictionary elements.  I was 
wondering if the default list element is (a) an interposed level around the 
standard list element, (b) a replacement for the standard list element, or 
merely (c) an example of a standard list element.  It 
was only by looking at the example schema that I could see that the general 
pattern is that of (a):

<someElement>

  
<ct:ValueListURL>myUNI</ctValueListURL>

  
<ct:Value>aValue</ct:Value>

</someElement>

Or

<someElement>

  
<someElementDefault>

    
<ct:valueListURL>someElement’sDefaultUNI</ctValueListURL>

    
<ct:Value>aValueFromDefaults</ct:Value>

  
</someElementDefault>

</someElement>

·         
The descriptions of the 
defaulting mechanism is not handled in a uniform manner.  So for example, DistributionStatus is a 
single entry in the Data Dictionary, whereas DistributionKind also has 
DistributionKindDefault and DistributionKindValueList defined.  I could be wrong, but I don’t think 
you’re trying to make a distinction here.

·         
It would be helpful to state that 
it is RECOMMENDED that any system that can store-and-forward message preserve 
the element order, and those systems whose primary role is to store-and-forward 
messages MUST preserve the element order.  
This would support the use of ordering for TargetArea 
priority.

·         
In addition to preserving 
ordering, I would like that XML comments be explicitly allowed (and their 
ordering with respect to elements preserved), viz:

Systems whose primary role is to store-and-forward messages MUST 
preserve XML comments.

It is RECOMMENDED that all systems that can store-and-forward 
messages preserve XML comments.

Systems that generate and/or consume messages MAY provide means for 
the user to respectively add and view comments.

·         
No default lists for 
confidentiality, senderRole, recipientRole?