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@w... [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On
Behalf Of XML4Pharma
Sent: 13 January 2009 17:55
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