# Basetypes (schema/specification)

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [20 December 2011 17:38 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115 "2011-12-20T17:38:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/yampeku/32/25_2.png) [@yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/yampeku)\
**Post date:** [20 December 2011 17:38 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/1 "2011-12-20T17:38:20Z")

</div>

I have been doing some tests with the file archetype.xsd available on  
the webpage and I have run with some problems.  
The main one is regarding BaseTypes.xsd, which supposedly defines  
types such as intervalOfInteger, intervalOfDate..., but doesn't  
contain them. Documentation  
([http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/documentation/BaseTypes.xsd.html#h888547087](http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/documentation/BaseTypes.xsd.html#h888547087))  
says otherwise, so I'm not sure how are documentation and schema  
generated/related.

I suspect that schema is out of date, but I don't quite understand how  
a supposedly autogenerated documentation and his XSD disagree. I know  
that this kind of approach is being left behind, but at least a  
version public on the webpage should be complete (take note that I'm  
not talking about being correct regarding the specifications, for the  
moment I just want to compile it)

Another thing I have detected is a mix of CamelCase and underscores on  
the types definition of current BaseTypes.xsd. There are things like  
DATA\_VALUE or DV\_DATE\_TIME but also archetypeNodeId, atCode, or  
Iso8601DateTime.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Heath_Frankel3)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 04:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/2 "2011-12-21T04:46:37Z")

</div>

[http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TAGS/Release-1.0.2/ITS/XML-schema](http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TAGS/Release-1.0.2/ITS/XML-schema) is  
the latest schema.

If anything the documentation may be out of sync. The documentation is  
generate using Oxygen.

Heath

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/yampeku/32/25_2.png) [@yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/yampeku)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 08:30 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/3 "2011-12-21T08:30:08Z")

</div>

ok, then the link of the XSD is pointing to an old version (link on  
this page [http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html](http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html)).  
This is the page that can be reached through the openEHR website menu.  
and the second issue is still true: types with CamelCase and  
underscores names exist on the same schema

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Heath_Frankel3)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 10:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/4 "2011-12-21T10:50:16Z")

</div>

What is the issue? The upper case types defined in the logical  
specifications, whilst the CamelCase are ITS defined. Like many mappings  
from logical specifications to an implementation technology, the XSD is not  
a pure representation of the logical specification. At least using this  
mixed approach it is obvious which are which.

If you are concerned about this because you are generating classes from the  
schema, then this is the price you pay unfortunately. It is impossible to  
represent the logical specifications in its entirety using XSD, however it  
does provide you with a pretty good serialised representation of the  
specified models, these types do not appear in XML instances.

Having said that, it is likely that the XML schema will be reviewed in the  
near future as part of ADL 1.5 release and we are considering the pros and  
cons of various XSD representations based on human readability,  
specification alignment, class generation etc. You may want to contribute to  
this when it gets underway.

Heath

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/yampeku/32/25_2.png) [@yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/yampeku)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 13:53 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/5 "2011-12-21T13:53:45Z")

</div>

It is not 'wrong', I'm just saying that following the same syntax for  
everything would be better. We had already a discussion about this on  
this same list regarding same issues on other schema. I was just  
pointing them out in case they need to be changed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 14:02 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/6 "2011-12-21T14:02:47Z")

</div>

> ```auto
> ok, then the link of the XSD is pointing to an old version (link on
> this page [http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html](http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html)).
> This is the page that can be reached through the openEHR website menu.
> 
> ```

you are right, the TRUNK page text was out of date. No new XSDs have been uploaded yet. I am working on a new AOM xsd. For the RM, there are [various suggestions for improvement](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/XML+Schemas), and I think anyone who has improved versions to proposed, please post them on the wiki with some documentation, and we will link from the above page.

> ```auto
> and the second issue is still true: types with CamelCase and
> underscores names exist on the same schema
> 
> ```

well that’s life in XML schema land. It may offend some from a pure aesthetics point of view, but it is actually more helpful than harmful, because it makes it easy to recognise XSD class definitions that are ‘pure’ copies of the RM, versus pseudo-classes needed due to XSD limitations. This is very useful for software implementation…

- thomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [21 December 2011 14:04 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/basetypes-schema-specification/15115/7 "2011-12-21T14:04:43Z")

</div>

despite my last comment (that the differing upper-case & mixed-case in  
the same schema is useful), if the community wants to change this to  
just camel case, that's fine. I personally would argue against it for  
the reasons I gave, but that's just my opinion; the opinions of people  
buried in XML implementations are more important.

- thomas