Proposal to harmonize definitions of PremisesAffected and LinkedPremises
#59
Conversation
…edPremises` elements.
markborkum
changed the title
PremisesAffected and `Link…PremisesAffected and LinkedPremises
| This proposal is to harmonize the definition of the `PremisesAffected` element with that of the `LinkedPremises` element. For example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```xml | ||
| <Measure> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks nice. I like that we can reuse LinkedPremises and remove the Premise word which is a made up word for this context.
Tagging @jasondegraw
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nllong It makes the most sense to me to just reuse LinkedPremises without modification and remove the PremisesAffected element entirely.
|
|
||
| Note that: | ||
|
|
||
| * The `PremisesAffected` element is a child of the `Measure` element. Within each `PremiseAffected` element, there may be a child `MeasureCoverage` element. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you suggest moving MeasureCoverage to another level, or adding MeasureCoverage to LinkedPremises?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this context, adding a MeasureCoverage element is redundant. We can edit the documentation of the LinkedPremises so that it is no longer so system-centric, which should be enough to use the element without structural additions.
| Note that: | ||
|
|
||
| * The `PremisesAffected` element is a child of the `Measure` element. Within each `PremiseAffected` element, there may be a child `MeasureCoverage` element. | ||
| * Unlike the `LinkedPremises` element and its child elements, the `PremiseAffected` element does not indicate the type of the referenced element (the target of the `IDref` attribute). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this is a big issue.
| This proposal is to harmonize the definition of the `PremisesAffected` element with that of the `LinkedPremises` element. For example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```xml | ||
| <Measure> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nllong It makes the most sense to me to just reuse LinkedPremises without modification and remove the PremisesAffected element entirely.
|
|
||
| Note that: | ||
|
|
||
| * The `PremisesAffected` element is a child of the `Measure` element. Within each `PremiseAffected` element, there may be a child `MeasureCoverage` element. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this context, adding a MeasureCoverage element is redundant. We can edit the documentation of the LinkedPremises so that it is no longer so system-centric, which should be enough to use the element without structural additions.
| <LinkedPremises> | ||
| <Site> | ||
| <LinkedSiteID IDref="Site1"> | ||
| <MeasureCoverage>10</MeasureCoverage> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer that we use the currently implemented floor area element instead of adding an additional element here.
…f "PremisesAffected" element with "LinkedPremises" element.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, apparently if you don't click "Submit review" nothing will happen. Sorry for the delay. This all looks good to me. We could switch up the details on the affected areas so we'd have better coverage of the options, but that isn't something to hold this up.
…edPremises` elements.