Hi Heath, take a look at items in CLUSTER, it is declared as a local element.
Bert Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 27 nov. 2012 om 20:47 heeft Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com> het volgende geschreven: > CLUSTER for one. The XML ITS of the RM is not a pure representation of the > RM. Design decisions needed to be made, this is one of them. If you have a > problem with it raise a jira issue. > Heath > > On Nov 28, 2012 5:55 AM, "Bert Verhees" <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: >> >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >> >> Op 27 nov. 2012 om 20:13 heeft Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at >> oceaninformatics.com> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Bert, >>> Items is not a class, it is an attribute. >>> >> >> exactly my idea, it is not an attribute in XSD context, but in class context. >> >> from which class is it an attribute? >> >> Bert >>> Heath >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2012 8:50 PM, "Bert Verhees" <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: >>>> Op 27-11-2012 9:07, Heath Frankel schreef: >>>>> >>>>> Bert, >>>>> You can define elements to be type of an abstract type allowing any >>>>> concrete subtype in an instance. This is the intent of the items element, >>>>> to allow any rotatable concrete type to be represented in a document with >>>>> root element of items. >>>>> Heath >>>> >>>> Hi Heath, >>>> >>>> You can just have one globally element from Locatable in the XSD, and say >>>> that XML-instances must comply to that. (just joking) >>>> ---- >>>> There is no other globally defined element in the structures.xsd, so there >>>> is no other root-element. >>>> >>>> Every valid XML-instance has one (only one) root-element. So, many >>>> schema-processors need at least one root-element in the XSD for >>>> validation-purpose, and the XML instance must conform to that. Many >>>> schema-processors can only access root-elements directly. I think that for >>>> usability and portability the structures.xsd should have that also. >>>> >>>> I think this is a left-over situation because (I am looking quite some >>>> years at OpenEHR), in the past, it was not done to archetype >>>> ITEM_STRUCTURE's as root, they did only appear as property. I don't know >>>> when the first ITEM_STRUCTURE derived archetypes appeared in CKM. >>>> >>>> I remember Sam mentioning, some years ago, that he didn't like the >>>> demographics-classes, but that they should be replaced by generic >>>> structures derived from ITEM_STRUCTURE. I had this discussion with him in >>>> the context of the Ocean-archetype editor which is build (maybe partly) by >>>> Sam, and also does not support demographics (It is sometime ago I looked >>>> for the last time) >>>> >>>> It is a valid opinion, but this advice was not followed by the community. >>>> However, the demographic-specs are valid inside the OpenEHR specs. They >>>> also appear in CKM. >>>> >>>> But still ITEM_STRUCTURE-derived archetypes appeared in CKM, but for other >>>> purposes than demographics. >>>> There can be XML-instances from ITEM_STRUCTURE-derived. >>>> So also for this reason, the XSD should declare ITEM_STRUCTURE derived >>>> elements globally. >>>> >>>> >>>> And also besides this all, the globaly defined "items", must be meant to >>>> be a property of other definitions, because there is no class in the >>>> reference model which is called "items". >>>> Considering that, I think, the "items" is (originally ) meant of type >>>> LOCATABLE to satisfy all possible appearances of the property items in >>>> structures, which have a semantically other meaning. But this is not >>>> following the granularity of the specs. So the "items" properties which >>>> are in the structures have a more fine-grained definition. Maybe this is >>>> corrected, anyway, this how it should be. >>>> So I think, the "items" element it is a left over, an element should be >>>> declared globally if it is used in more then one complex type, but it >>>> isn't used at all. So it is there doing nothing. >>>> >>>> That is why I asked about that. >>>> ----- >>>> Besides the portability among schema-processors >>>> >>>> As you can see it in the demographics.xsd which comes from LinkEHR, there >>>> is for every concrete class a global element declaration. >>>> It has a very precise interface, which makes it easier to develop code >>>> against it. That is why it is like that. LinkEHR uses it in code. So, this >>>> is the usability-argument. >>>> >>>> See also this tutorial >>>> http://www.herongyang.com/XML-Schema/Language-Basic-Declare-Root-Element.html >>>> by Dr. Herong Yang: >>>> >>>> Rule 1. A schema must have at least one Element Declaration Component to >>>> declare a root element for the conforming XML document. >>>> >>>> That is how it should be, also in my opinion, as I said, for portability >>>> to all kind of schema-processing environments. I would like to see the >>>> OpenEHR-foundation to take this position too. >>>> >>>> And if they don't, which can result also in valid XSD, they should at >>>> least explain why they don't. There are many styles for >>>> schema-organization, and one must make his choice and explain why. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> But even if they don't, I write my own XSD, I can live without the >>>> OpenEHR-XSD, but it would be nice to have following my purpose defined XSD >>>> from the foundation. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your reply >>>> >>>> Bert >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121128/e07ae561/attachment-0001.html>
