# xml schemas finalised? **Category:** [Implementers (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implementers-archive/158) **Created:** 2007-04-21 01:57 UTC **Views:** 4 **Replies:** 3 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/xml-schemas-finalised/13540 --- ## Post #1 by @Andrew_Patterson I have a project that needs some certainty with regards the XML schema for 1\.0\.1\. Are they considered part of the 1\.0\.1 release or are they on a different schedule? I still have some blocking issues with the current versions in subversion Composition\.xsd \-> COMPOSITION no longer is an extension of LOCATABLE\. I think this must be a typo? Archetype\.xsd \-> ARCHETYPE\_ONTOLOGY is inadequate to store the ontology data that can be expressed in ADL\. Even if term\_codes is changed to a List<ARCHETYPE\_TERM>, I still don't see how it can store all the ADL data \(multiple term codes for different languages?\)\. Archetype\.xsd \-> there have been some substantial changes to this over the last few weeks \(adding in AUTHORED\_RESOURCE etc\)\. The archetype tools need to be updated to output XML that meets this schema\. Currently, the XML samples in the archetype repository need to be substantially edited to make them validate\. Interval Stuff \-> we need to agree on the unified form for IntervalOfInteger etc \(and DV\_INTERVAL\), including documenting semantics that can't be captured by XSD\. I think the current schema is probably correct \- but just needs unification between DV\_INTERVAL and the others\. Andrew --- ## Post #2 by @Mattias_Forss1 Hi Andrew (and others), These issues should be solved as soon as possible. Also, the archetype tools (especially the LiU editor which outputs really old XML) should be updated to output valid XML. If someone is good at JAXB (Java XML binding) I could need a hand to get the XMLSerializer component output XML which validates against the Archetype schema and also to make a new component (XML parser) which parses XML into some object tree created by JAXB from the Archetype schema... The ideal would however be to make JAXB instansiate objects directly from the AOM, but I don't know if that is possible with the current immutable state for the AOM classes... Regards, Mattias 2007/4/21, Andrew Patterson <[andrewpatto@gmail.com](mailto:andrewpatto@gmail.com)>: --- ## Post #3 by @thomas.beale Dear all, unfortunately we noticed these errors after making the Release 1\.0\.1 tag\. The errors were partly due to a miscommunication on my part to the schema writers about how to encode he archetype schema, caused by the current interface\-style specification of the ARCHETYPE\_ONTOLOGY class\. Corrected schemas are now posted in the TRUNK area of the repository \- see: \* schemas: http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TRUNK/ITS/XML-schema/ \* documentation: http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html I think it would be appropriate to add these to the Tagged Release 1\.0\.1, even though this is officially incorrect practice for version management\. However, I think it will be less confusing for users to get the schemas in the 1\.0\.1 tag area that actually do correspond to the reference model there \- particularly the archetype schema, which can't work in its previous form\. If there is ageement here, I will add these corrected schemas and documentation into the TAGS/Release\-1\.0\.1 area as well\. \- thomas beale Mattias Forss wrote: --- ## Post #4 by @Andrew_Patterson > If there is ageement here, I will add these corrected schemas and > documentation into the TAGS/Release\-1\.0\.1 area as well\. I agree that it is not ideal, but the schemas in the tagged release are fundamentally broken so I don't think it is satisfactory to leave them in that state\. I vote for making the update on the tagged release\. Andrew --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/xml-schemas-finalised/13540 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/xml-schemas-finalised/13540