However, if you think about implementation, then it might make sense to par=
tition 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 na=
mespaces.

Simon

______
Simon.Cox@c...  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@w... [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On=
 Behalf Of Michael Kay
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2009 5:36 AM
To: 'XML4Pharma'; xmlschema-dev@w...
Subject: RE: HL7-v3-XML namespaces

In my view it makes sense to associate a namespace one-to-one with a specif=
ication document that describes and defines the meanings of the names in th=
at namespace. It really doesn't matter whether these names are used in a si=
ngle 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 sche=
ma 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" essentiall=
y have their own namespace, and then have the common/shared elements in ano=
ther, shared namespace ?

Your comments are appreciated.

Jozef

Jozef Aerts