This sort of namespace use is perfectly OK.  This use essentially puts
the standards defined by HL7 in their own area to protect from name
collisions with other specs.

 

OTOH some people like to create many namespaces so that they can refer
easily to a subset of things (like with wildcards).

 

I'd call that kind of grouping of things into namespaces a workable
design strategy, but I wouldn't call it a "best practice".

 

Best regards,

David Ezell 

 

________________________________

From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...]
On Behalf Of XML4Pharma
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:55 PM
To: xmlschema-dev@w...
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