[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Important Codelist Schema Generation Matter for the Wednesday Co-ordination Call
Here is a matter LCSC would like to
discuss on the Co-ordination call (or through e-mail
from any who can't attend). It is important
for the generation of our Schemas.
We in LCSC have two or three possible ways we
can think of to architect the Schemas
with regard to codelists:-
a) We would like to offer two alternative
solutions, both of which involve the removal
of the CLUDT Schema module, the moving of the
CodeType into the UDT Schema Module
and the references to cludt:xxxCodeType
in other modules changed from cludt to udt.
The CodeTypes in the codelist Schemas would
then be based on the CCT rather than the
CLUDT.
One of the alternatives incorporating the above
is:-
b) To keep the 'codelist/use' folder and its
various Codelist Schema Modules but to
remove all enumerations from the SDT Schema Module
out of the Codelist Schema Modules
and into the SDT Schema Module.
The other is:-
c) To remove the codelist/use folder and its
various Codelist Schema Modules and to
enumerate all the specialised (SDT) codes into the
SDT Schema Module.
b) seems to present a better solution for
customisation but c) is simpler
(LCSC has some members prefering either
option)
If a) is ruled out it still leaves b) and c),
albeit changed a little, as alternative designs.
I have attached sets of Schemas following each approach b) and c).
The main differences are in the existence or non-existence of Codelist
Schemas in a
'codelist/use' folder. They also have enumerations in either place but not
in both.
Please would people examine these in order to express a preference or
important
issues regarding each alternative before or during the Co-ordination Call
tomorrow.
We really do need to have a decision tomorrow.
Many Thanks
Steve
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]