Thanks Timothy,
I've copied Gary Ham and Alessandro Triglia in hopes that the
duplication will draw their attention to this since they specifically
identified the XLink conflict, and I believe we thought we had resolved
it. It was, as I recall, the same difficulty for both EDXL-HAVE and
EDXL-RM, so we will have to review it again.
As you may know, there is an errata coming out for both EDXL-HAVE and
EDXL-RM, so it would probably be wise to verify that the issue continues
after these errata have been implemented.
Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to chase down the <BedType>
issue. I'm assuming that the issue to which you refer is not the name of
the subtype: <have:SubCategoryBedType>foo,
etc.</have:SubCategoryBedType>, but the availability, which appears to
me to be viable. The parent capacity must be "0" before the subtype can
be used. I will look at it later.
Cheers,
Rex
Gilmore, Timothy wrote:
>
> One of our engineers has been looking closely at the EDXL-HAVE
> standard and has some comments / questions:
>
>
>
> (1) The XLink schema files distributed by OGC (the Open Geospatial
>
> Consortium) and OASIS conflict. According to [0], the only present
> workaround is to edit the schema files locally, which makes me very
> uncomfortable.
>
>
>
> (2) My interpretation of the description of the intention of the
> <BedType> element conflicts with the schema. The schema is more than
> happy to accept this snippet in an otherwise valid EDXL-HAVE document:
>
>
>
> <have:BedCapacity>
>
> <have:BedType>MedicalSurgical</have:BedType>
>
> <have:BedType>OtherIsolation</have:BedType>
>
> <have:BedType>NurseryBeds</have:BedType>
>
> <have:SubCategoryBedType>foo, etc.</have:SubCategoryBedType>
>
> <have:SubCategoryBedType><Ù>ãáììá</Ù></have:SubCategoryBedType>
>
> <have:Capacity>
>
> <have:CapacityStatus>Vacant/Available</have:CapacityStatus>
>
> <have:AvailableCount>20</have:AvailableCount>
>
> <have:BaselineCount>30</have:BaselineCount>
>
> </have:Capacity>
>
> <have:Capacity>
>
> <have:CapacityStatus>NotAvailable</have:CapacityStatus>
>
> <have:AvailableCount>999</have:AvailableCount>
>
> </have:Capacity>
>
> </have:BedCapacity>
>
>
>
> In particular, I can't reconcile this with the normative constraints
> of <Capacity> and <SubCategoryBedType> listed in section 3.2.4 of the
> standard (and with the non-normative diagram in section 3.1). To
> which <BedType> element(s) and/or <SubCategoryBedType> element(s) do
> the <Capacity> elements refer?
>
>
>
> Note that the example of <SubCategoryBedType> elements on page 27 of
> the standard is not valid (for several reasons), and therefore of
> marginal use as an example.
>
>
>
> Can these comments / questions get reviewed and answered?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> *Timothy D. Gilmore* | SAIC
>
> Senior Test Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP
>
> phone: 606.274.2063 | fax: 606.274.2012
>
> mobile: 606.219.7882 | email:
> <mailto:>
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
