I think we’ve missed the point here:
1. Profiles are fine in the sense that IPAWS and CAP Canadian Messages only make optional elements mandatory. Not a problem by me.
2. Profiles shouldn’t be mandatory to be able to figure out the standard; nor should we be encouraging it for each various implementation, because if not done well, it can cause systems to break
3. The point of XSD’s are to represent a standard data structure based on a spec for data interchange
4. Standards don’t needs XSD’s – they only need documentation
a. Our documentation is not clear about using xPIL – It doesn’t constrain the use of xPIL or the use of lists.
b. We just bulk-copied the xPIL xsd and posted it along with HAVE
c. I don’t think someone writing code for EDXL-HAVE should have to write code to parse a Hospital’s stock ticker symbol
d. My original question was regarding
i. whether HAVE really intended to include the entire xPIL schema in the HAVE documents
ii. Why the HAVE documentation didn’t match the included xPIL schema
iii. Why we didn’t make some form of OrganizationInformation mandatory
5. My SOAP processor can handle that message because that falls within the documentation and schema as defined CLEARLY in the spec…can your HAVE system handle everything in this OrganizationInformation below without crashing? 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 would be no.
6. BTW that’s 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