Params cannot carry descriptions in VOEvent 1.1

[Matthew Graham]

On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:

>> OK, this defines exactly what constitutes a Param (from the XML Schema POV). It says that an element of type Param (<Param>) only has four attributes: name, ucd, value and unit; and can contain nothing else. No Description. No Reference.
>> 
>> So:
>> 
>> <Param name="Sun_Distance" value="132.21" unit="deg" ucd="pos.angDistance">
>> 	<Description>Angular distance from the sun to the event position</Description>
>> </Param>
>> 
>> is currently illegal (like dying in the Houses of Parliament).
> 
> This was intentional.  The specification is normative:
> 
> "Usage of <Param> and <Group> is similar to the VOTable specification, see §4.1 of [22]; however, a <Param> must be expressed as an empty element and only the following attributes are supported for<Param> under VOEvent: [name, value, unit, ucd]"

Ah, but the "normative" spec also says:

"A <Description> may be included within any element or sub-element of a VOEvent to add human readable content."

and

"A <Reference> may be included in any element or sub-element of a VOEvent packet to describe an association with external content via a Uniform Resource Identifier [16]."

So which part of the "normative" spec is not?

> 
>> Oh, and I've just noted that the schema also currently says that elements can be called "Reference" but have no type associated with them. This needs to be corrected as well.
> 
> The default interpretation for a missing type is url:
> 
> "3.9.2 type — The type of the document. Allowed values are "voevent", to reference a previously issued VOEvent packet (in whole or in part); "url", for a MIME-typed URL; "rtml", to refer to an RTML [15] document (typically the one used to drive the telescope that made the observation(s) resulting in the event), or — "ivorn", to refer to IVO resources. The default value is "url"."
> 
> The group needs to discuss what the behavior should be (and issues like the requirements for backwards compatibility).  Then the wording of a draft v2.0 specification needs to be vetted to match.  Then a draft v2.0 schema needs to be crafted to suit, and etc.

Sorry, you've misunderstood me. The XML Schema says, for example: 

  <xs:complexType name="What">
    <xs:choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
      <xs:element name="Param"/>
      <xs:element name="Group"/>
      <xs:element name="Description" type="Description"/>
      <xs:element name="Reference"/>
    </xs:choice>
  </xs:complexType>

This should be:

  <xs:complexType name="What">
    <xs:choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
      <xs:element name="Param"/>
      <xs:element name="Group"/>
      <xs:element name="Description" type="Description"/>
      <xs:element name="Reference"   type="Reference" *** THIS BIT IS MISSING IN THE SCHEMA *** />
    </xs:choice>
  </xs:complexType>

	Cheers,

	Matthew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/voevent/attachments/20100326/47dd48f5/attachment-0001.html>