EM Infrastructure Framework SC

 View Only
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

EDXL-DE 2.0 schema changes proposed at TCIP F2F meeting

  • 1.  EDXL-DE 2.0 schema changes proposed at TCIP F2F meeting

    Posted 03-02-2010 05:58
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    doc
    EDXL-DE_Spec_v1.1.doc   600 KB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: [emergency-if] EDXL-DE 2.0 schema changes proposed at TCIP F2F meeting

    Posted 03-03-2010 03:04 
    










    


    Hans
    


    


    I believe locCodeUN was to allow for a user defined valueName
and values consistent with CAP. You may recall I was making the case for FIPS
and Canadian SGC use. 
    


    


    


    Cheers,
    


    


    Doug Allport
    


    Executive Director
    


    Canadian Association for Public Alerting and Notification
(CAPAN)
    


    Doug.Allport@CAPAN.ca 
    


    (613) 271-1040 Tel
    


    (613) 294-4425 Blackberry
    


    www.CAPAN.ca
    


    


    


    


    


    


    From: Hans Jespersen
[mailto:Hans.Jespersen@SolaceSystems.com]
    
Sent: March-02-10 12:57 AM
    
To: emergency-if@lists.oasis-open.org
    
Subject: [emergency-if] EDXL-DE 2.0 schema changes proposed at TCIP F2F
meeting
    


    


    


    


    I
took a crack at updating the older strawman EDXL-DE 1.1 spec (attached) to
reflect the changes I committed to making at the TCIP show F2F. 
    


    


    The
changes were as follows:
    


    


    -      
I made the spec into version 2.0 instead of
version 1.1
    


    -      
I changed the type of the newly added
<replyTo> and <errorTo> elements to be the same complex type as the
element <explictAddress> (which is a type called “valueSchemeType”)
    


    -      
I removed the complex types “replyToType” and “authenticationType” since they are no longer used for
the <replyTo>
and <errorTo> elements
    


    -      
I moved <replyTo> and <errorTo>
elements down to appear just after <explicitAddress> since the elements
must appear in a specific order (being that they are defined as a sequence) and
it makes more sense to group all the explicitAddress(es) together
    


    -      
I changed the <xmlContent> element name
to <contentXML> so it would be compliant with the xml naming rules. I
also renamed the complex type from “xmlContentType” to “contentXMLType” to be
consistent (and just in case there are similar naming rules for types as well)
    


    


    I think that reflects all the schema
changes I was tasked with. I do have other action items which we can discuss on
the call today (Mar 02)
    


    


    -hans
    


    


    -- 
    


    Hans Jespersen
    


    Principal Systems Engineer
    


    Solace Systems Inc.
    


    2051 Landings Drive, Mountain View, CA
94043
    


    Phone: (650) 924-2670
    


    hans.jespersen@solacesystems.com
    


    http://www.solacesystems.com


Related Content