Sukumar, as editor of HAVE, can you respond to this ASAP? I'm less
concerned about "process" at this time than getting these folks
what they need to be able to exchange HAVE messages in Hati. Please
respond. Elysa
At 06:14 AM 3/1/2010, Lee Tincher wrote:
Ka-Ping,
You are correct in all points on the new Errata. I have been in
contact with OASIS to get this clarified/fixed ASAP. The PR4 errata
does not have many of these errors (but has some other ones)
All we need this clarified as soon as we can this is excessively
important to the success of HAVE in the Haiti response.
Thanks,
Lee
Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the
public and have no self. -
Cyril Connolly
From: Ka-Ping Yee
[kpy@google.com">
mailto:kpy@google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:27 AM
To: Lee Tincher; Bill Lang
Cc: Roni Zeiger; Martin Omander
Subject: EDXL-HAVE spec questions
Hello Lee,
I've run into a couple of problems with the EDXL specification, and was
hoping you could help out?
This is the document I'm using:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-have/os/emergency_edxl_have-1.0-spec-os.pdf
(This is the link listed at
http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php#edxlhave.)
And this is the XSD schema I'm using:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/edxl-have/os/edxl-have-os.xsd
First, a few things that look like simple typos in the EDXL-HAVE
example document (Appendix A):
1. The <xpil:OrganisationInfo> element seems to be in the wrong
order. According to the schema, it seems it should appear between
<xnl:OrganisationName> and <xpil:Addresses>, not after
<xpil:Addresses>. Can you confirm?
2. The example has a <have:TriageCount> element, but there is no
such XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it seems
that <have:TriageCodeListURN> and <have:TriageCode> should be
immediate children of <have:EMSCapacity>. Can you
confirm?
3. The example has a <have:Offload> element, but there is no such
XML element in the schema. According to the schema, it seems that
<have:EMSOffloadStatus> and <have:EMSOffloadMinutes> should
be immediate children of <have:EMSAmbulanceStatus>. Can you
confirm?
4. The example has a <have:AdultGeneralSugery> element, which I
assume is a typographic error and should be
<have:AdultGeneralSurgery>. Can you confirm?
Second, though, a more concerning problem with the BedCapacity section
(Section 3.2.4):
The text, and example 1, suggest that the <have:BedCapacity>
element should contain a (<BedType>, <Capacity>) pair,
followed by any number of (<SubCategoryBedType>, <Capacity>)
pairs.
However, example 1 doesn't validate. The XSD schema doesn't allow
for this structure; it only allows zero or more <BedType> elements,
followed by zero or more <SubCategoryBedType> elements, followed by
zero or more <Capacity> elements.
I can't figure out how to properly represent or interpret bed capacities
in this structure. Can you advise on the correct method? If
it is true that this just doesn't work as intended, should we decide to
use only <BedType> and avoid the use of <SubCategoryBedType>
in the EDXL-HAVE Haiti Profile?
Many thanks!
Ping
Technical Lead, Google Person Finder