W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2009

RE: HL7-v3-XML namespaces

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:35:48 +0900
To: <mike@saxonica.com>, <info@XML4Pharma.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5D27281509882544A841804E4EBA914C02222D12BB@EXWA-MBX01.nexus.csiro.au>
However, if you think about implementation, then it might make sense to partition components into namespaces that match conformance testing boundaries.
i.e. it is easy to say that "a conformant implementation will implement all components from namespace X".
So a specification that allows for various conformance levels may describe components in more than one namespace, with conformance classes matching namespaces.

Simon

______
Simon.Cox@csiro.au  CSIRO Exploration & Mining
26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151
PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102  AUSTRALIA
T: +61 (0)8 6436 8639  Cell: +61 (0) 403 302 672
Polycom PVX: 130.116.146.28
<http://www.csiro.au<http://www.csiro.au/>>

ABN: 41 687 119 230



________________________________
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 5:36 AM
To: 'XML4Pharma'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: RE: HL7-v3-XML namespaces

In my view it makes sense to associate a namespace one-to-one with a specification document that describes and defines the meanings of the names in that namespace. It really doesn't matter whether these names are used in a single type of document or message, or in 400 different types of message. If it makes sense to define the messages in a single spec, then it also makes sense to use a single namespace.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/



________________________________
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of XML4Pharma
Sent: 13 January 2009 17:55
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: HL7-v3-XML namespaces

Dear all,

I am currently studying the set of HL7-v3-XML messages.

What surprised me is that different of these messages (each of them defined by its own standard) all have the same namespace associated ("urn:hl7-org:v3").
So we find the same default namespace for the CCD/CDA, aECG and for the SPL standard - this though the root elements are really different:
- "ClinicalDocument" for CDA/CCD
- "Document" for SPL
- "AnnotatedECG" for aECG

So we find in the instance documents .e.g.:

CDA: <ClinicalDocument xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3" ...
SPL: <Document xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3" ...
aECG: <AnnotatedECG xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3"

I realize each of these three "standards" use a set of common elements and attributes, which are defined in schemas that are shared, but the main schema is different, and the composition (child elements) of the root elements is different each time.

Is this "good practice" or should have each of these "standards" essentially have their own namespace, and then have the common/shared elements in another, shared namespace ?

Your comments are appreciated.

Jozef

Jozef Aerts
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 05:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:50 UTC