How should virtual resources be represented? According to TS-0001 they are Child Resources, but they have a well-defined name which makes them look a bit like attributes that have a URI type. Presumably we are supposed to return these URIs if rc includes "child-resource-references" but not if it asks for just "attributes" or for "child-resources". So one interpretation is that we don't show them in the schemas at all, and they are just returned via the childResourceRef mechanism (this would mean we would need to add values for the virtual resources to the resourceType enumeration). The alternative is to represent them as explicit named elements in the schema (like we do for attributes) and return their values that way (when rc permits this).
How should virtual resources be represented? According to TS-0001 they are Child Resources, but they have a well-defined name which makes them look a bit like attributes that have a URI type. Presumably we are supposed to return these URIs if rc includes "child-resource-references" but not if it asks for just "attributes" or for "child-resources". So one interpretation is that we don't show them in the schemas at all, and they are just returned via the childResourceRef mechanism (this would mean we would need to add values for the virtual resources to the resourceType enumeration). The alternative is to represent them as explicit named elements in the schema (like we do for attributes) and return their values that way (when rc permits this).
There are a few places where attributes are defined as xs:string. If these are human readable - e.g. groupName - that's fine (though it raises a question of whether they should carry the xml:lang attribute). In some cases - e.g. contentType or locationStatus - it seems that the value is meant to be machine readable, but we don't enumerate (or even define) the allowable values for them.
There are a few places where attributes are defined as xs:string. If these are human readable - e.g. groupName - that's fine (though it raises a question of whether they should carry the xml:lang attribute). In some cases - e.g. contentType or locationStatus - it seems that the value is meant to be machine readable, but we don't enumerate (or even define) the allowable values for them.
Showing the cardinality of child resources is tricky for resource types where the cardinality varies by child resource. It's easy to do if we make them a sequence, but that forces a particular order. If we want to allow them to appear in any order, we have to use a repeated choice, which makes it hard to force a minOccurs of 1 or a maxOccurs of 1 on any of the of the child resources - they all become [0..n]
\<accessControlPolicy\>
\<accessControlPolicy\>
...
@@ -41,6 +42,11 @@ General
...
@@ -41,6 +42,11 @@ General
The order in which the attributes appear is different between TS-0001 and TS-0004 (also TS-0004 should say creator not Creator)
The order in which the attributes appear is different between TS-0001 and TS-0004 (also TS-0004 should say creator not Creator)
Should the element for the virtual resource be called fanOut or fanOutURI?
Should the element for the virtual resource be called fanOut or fanOutURI?
\<node\>
There's an attribute which is called called hostedCSEID in TS-0004, but is called hostedCSELink in TS-0001
The cardinality of the child resources is enforced (see general comment)
\<serviceSubscribedNode\>
\<serviceSubscribedNode\>
Needs to be added to TS-0004 (in place of authororizedNode)
Needs to be added to TS-0004 (in place of authororizedNode)