Basetypes (schema/specification)
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-boun...@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-schema/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 I suspect that schema is out of date, but I don't quite understand how a supposedly autogenerated documentation and his XSD disagree.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
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/index.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-schema/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
Basetypes (schema/specification)
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
Basetypes (schema/specification)
It is not 'wrong', I'm just saying that following the same syntax for everything would be better. We had already a discussion about this on this same list regarding same issues on other schema. I was just pointing them out in case they need to be changed. 2011/12/21 Heath Frankel heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com: 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-bounces at 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 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
Basetypes (schema/specification)
On 21/12/2011 08:30, Diego Bosc? wrote: 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/index.html). This is the page that can be reached through the openEHR website menu. you are right, the TRUNK page text was out of date. No new XSDs have been uploaded yet. I am working on a new AOM xsd. For the RM, there are various suggestions for improvement http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/XML+Schemas, and I think anyone who has improved versions to proposed, please post them on the wiki with some documentation, and we will link from the above page. and the second issue is still true: types with CamelCase and underscores names exist on the same schema well that's life in XML schema land. It may offend some from a pure aesthetics point of view, but it is actually more helpful than harmful, because it makes it easy to recognise XSD class definitions that are 'pure' copies of the RM, versus pseudo-classes needed due to XSD limitations. This is very useful for software implementation... - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111221/84ef2e6b/attachment.html
Basetypes (schema/specification)
On 21/12/2011 13:53, Diego Bosc? wrote: It is not 'wrong', I'm just saying that following the same syntax for everything would be better. We had already a discussion about this on this same list regarding same issues on other schema. I was just pointing them out in case they need to be changed. despite my last comment (that the differing upper-case mixed-case in the same schema is useful), if the community wants to change this to just camel case, that's fine. I personally would argue against it for the reasons I gave, but that's just my opinion; the opinions of people buried in XML implementations are more important. - thomas
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-schema/documentation/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.
