[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
An interesting conversation indeed. My understanding was namespaces were to be used as specific pointers. As an example; I have a project at http://www.mlhim.org using this as the base I add xmlns and then the version of the schema to create the complete namespace for each schema. Examples: xmlns:mlhim2="http://www.mlhim.org/xmlns/mlhim2/2_3_0" xmlns:mlhim2="http://www.mlhim.org/xmlns/mlhim2/2_4_0" xmlns:mlhim2="http://www.mlhim.org/xmlns/mlhim2/2_4_1" [actually 2.4.1 will be released this coming week] are all three active versions of this reference model schema. Though they are essentially the same schema. Small changes to improve usability etc. were made in each version. There are constraint schemas developed against them and they will always exist as they were initially created, representing healthcare concepts. Once there are constraint schemas (Concept Constraint Definitions or CCDs) built against them and there is instance data against those CCDs. They must remain there forever in order to provide the syntax and semantics for the instance data, where ever that instance data exists. I cannot decide from the conversation if this is considered best practice or not. I had at one time thought to use xmlns:mlhim2=" http://www.mlhim.org/xmlns/mlhim2" in parallel with the versioned ones above but that is not functional as far as I can tell since the CCD needs to always know where the reference model schema it was built against exists. Thoughts? Thanks, Tim On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Fraser Goffin <goffinf@g...> wrote: David you may very well be right, but on a practical level, it is more
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



