EML: Issueshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/ecoinfo/favicon.ico?14691340362000-07-27T03:29:27ZEcoinformatics Redmine
Redmine Bug #45 (Resolved): problems validating against resource.xsdhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/452000-07-27T03:29:27ZMatt Jonesjones@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Using the Xerces parser (1.1.2), there are problems validating against the<br />resource.xsd XML Schema document, mainly pertaining to the content model of<br />originator. This may be a Xerces bug, but I doubt it because it works using<br />other examples.</p> Bug #44 (Resolved): givenName should be optional in iso-party.xsdhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/442000-07-27T03:27:37ZMatt Jonesjones@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>givenName should be optional in iso-party.xsd. In general, these content<br />standards should be as minimally constricting as possible.</p> Bug #43 (Resolved): ResourceVariation type not neededhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/432000-07-27T03:26:00ZMatt Jonesjones@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Inthe resource.xsd XML Schema document, the ResourceVariation type is not<br />needed. Instead, it would be better to just have a set of top-level elements<br />defined (like dataset and literature) that can be used as the docroot for<br />particular resource documents. This would eliminate the need for the whole file<br />"resourceExample.xsd".</p> Bug #42 (Resolved): mixed content not apprpriate in resource.xsdhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/422000-07-27T03:18:59ZMatt Jonesjones@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>A content model of "mixed" was used for several of the complex types in the<br />resource.xsd XML Schema documents. In general, because mixed content models<br />cannot be validated, I think they should not be used. In all of the cases here<br />the model should be changed to "elementOnly".</p>