README.md 4.06 KB
Newer Older
oneM2Mdev's avatar
oneM2Mdev committed
1 2 3
oneM2M-schemas
==============

PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
4 5 6
This is a private repository for developing oneM2M xsd files

The default branch will initially contain a "0.80" version of the  files, mathching the 0.8 version of TS-0004
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
7 8 9 10

Further work / questions on the schemas is listed here. Many of these need CRs against TS-0004

General
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
11 12 13
 
    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.
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
14 15 16 17 18 19 20

\<accessControlPolicy\>

    Do we need to give explicit names to all the types currently defined in the file?  
    Should some or all of theses types go into CDT-CommonTypes or CDT-Enumerations?
    Since accessControlOperation is an enumerated integer type, we could represent accessControlOperationList as a   list of simple types. This would be shorter than having it as a complex type.
    Look at definition of accessControlOriginators
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
21
    Do something with the 2 character country codes.
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
22 23 24 25 26 27

\<container\>

    What values go in latest and oldest if there are no child resources?
    Should <containerAnnc> be allowed to have <contentInstanceAnnc> as a child resource?
    
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
\<CSEBase\>

    m2m:resourceTypeList can be removed, since this type can be declared inline

\<group\>

    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?


PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
38 39
\<subscription\>  

PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
40
    Should the eventNotificationCriteria type be moved in to Common Types? (i.e. is it used anywhere else)?
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
41 42 43 44 45 46 47
    
CDT-enumerationTypes

    Add or update definitions of the following types:
      resultContent, statusCode, requestStatus, attribute, notificationCongestionPolicy
    Does m2m:memberType need to be different from m2m:resourceType? Can we remove it?
    Sort out the two m2m:operation types
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
48 49
    Should have a better name for listOfBoolean (it isn't a list)
    The third value of m2m:consistencyStrategy is called MODIFY_TYPE in TS-0004, but SET_MIXED in TS-0001
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
50 51 52
    
CDT-commonTypes

PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
    There are two different types to represent a list of URIs.  One is a simple type (using XSD list) the other one is a complex type, containing a separate child element for each URI. 
    We should look at the way that IDs are represented in the schemas. At present most of them are just xs:anyURI. Is that sufficient?
    There is some confusion as to whether the type is m2m:id or m2m:ID (and whether the other xxxid types should be xxxID or not).
    TS-0004 now seems to have three different kinds of timestamp.  There's m2m:timestamp, xs:dateTime and xs:dateTimeStamp
    It is not easy to see how to represent the changes made by PRO-2014-0562-Implementation_of_Filter_Criteria_as_concept
    Consider moving the m2m:filterUsage enumeration type into CDT-enumerationTypes
    The order of elements in m2m:operationResult looks a bit strange
    It's not clear what the cardinality of m2m:responseStatus/description should be


    More general revision and checking of CDT-commonTypes is required (defer this until after the other XSD files are complete)
PeterNiblett's avatar
PeterNiblett committed
64 65 66 67