What is the issue? The upper case types defined in the logical specifications, whilst the CamelCase are ITS defined. Like many mappings from logical specifications to an implementation technology, the XSD is not a pure representation of the logical specification. At least using this mixed approach it is obvious which are which.
If you are concerned about this because you are generating classes from the schema, then this is the price you pay unfortunately. It is impossible to represent the logical specifications in its entirety using XSD, however it does provide you with a pretty good serialised representation of the specified models, these types do not appear in XML instances. Having said that, it is likely that the XML schema will be reviewed in the near future as part of ADL 1.5 release and we are considering the pros and cons of various XSD representations based on human readability, specification alignment, class generation etc. You may want to contribute to this when it gets underway. Heath -----Original Message----- From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Diego Bosc? Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011 7:00 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Basetypes (schema/specification) ok, then the link of the XSD is pointing to an old version (link on this page http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/ind ex.html). This is the page that can be reached through the openEHR website menu. and the second issue is still true: types with CamelCase and underscores names exist on the same schema 2011/12/21 Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com>: > http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TAGS/Release-1.0.2/ITS/XML-schema > is the latest schema. > > If anything the documentation may be out of sync. ?The documentation > is generate using Oxygen. > > Heath > > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Diego > Bosc? > Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011 4:08 AM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Basetypes (schema/specification) > > I have been doing some tests with the file archetype.xsd available on > the webpage and I have run with some problems. > The main one is regarding BaseTypes.xsd, which supposedly defines > types such as intervalOfInteger, intervalOfDate..., but doesn't contain them. > Documentation > (http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-sch > ema/do > cumentation/BaseTypes.xsd.html#h888547087) > says otherwise, so I'm not sure how are documentation and schema > generated/related. > > I suspect that schema is out of date, but I don't quite understand how > a supposedly autogenerated documentation and his XSD disagree. I know > that this kind of approach is being left behind, but at least a > version public on the webpage should be complete (take note that I'm > not talking about being correct regarding the specifications, for the > moment I just want to compile > it) > > Another thing I have detected is a mix of CamelCase and underscores on > the types definition of current BaseTypes.xsd. There are things like > DATA_VALUE or DV_DATE_TIME but also archetypeNodeId, atCode, or Iso8601DateTime. > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
