I didn't realize that the XSD file has no license. Please assume a CC-BY license, which is the same we use for 13606 schemas.
2012/11/28 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>: > Hi! > > I see several use cases for sending and storing XML pieces smaller > than compositions etc as valid XML documents. > > What about creating a separate (but official) file with those root > elements in the same namespace as the other schema components? That > way implementers can choose if they want that part or not. > > Can you create a draft of such a file Bert and post it on the wiki or > mailing list? > > Also, what is needed to turn the LinkEHR demographics XSD into an > official openEHR one? (Technically and process-wise...) > > // Erik > > P.s. Bert, I think you may have interpreted the tone of some > comments/replies as more hostile than they were intended by the > senders. It is sometimes hard to understand what you and others asking > for so it takes some rounds of questions to clarify that. > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: >> On 11/27/2012 10:42 PM, Seref Arikan wrote: >>> When you do not have a root element definition in an XSD, you can't create >>> XML documents which will be valid according to that XSD. What Bert is saying >>> is, if we had a bunch of root elements in the XSDs, it would allow us create >>> valid XML with these root elements. > [...] >> I just want root-elements for every concrete class which can be root in a >> XML-instantiation. > [...] >> It is maybe 10 lines added, and none changed or removed. If Heath wants to >> keep that "items" line, it is not in my way. >> And the lines I want added will be in no ones way. It is a recommendation to >> add these. > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
