Hi, there. I am new to RIXML, but trying to develop a system that will generate it for our research. However, I am confused by the choice of elements and attributes.

1. The schema does not always seem to follow the guidelines in the User Guide (v 2.3.1, January 2010, page 12), or - more obviously - be consistent.

For example, IssuerID has attributes idType and idValue. However, IssuerName has nameType as an attribute, but NameValue as an element. So I end up with:

<Issuer issuerType="Corporate" primaryIndicator="Yes">
<IssuerID idType="Bloomberg" idValue="MTL US" />
<IssuerName nameType="Display">
<NameValue>Mechel</NameValue>
</IssuerName>
</Issuer>

I would have thought it made sense, in both case, actually to use the two elements to hold (what are clearly default) values.

<Issuer issuerType="Corporate" primaryIndicator="Yes">
<IssuerID idType="Bloomberg">MTL US</IssuerID>
<IssuerName nameType="Display">Mechel</IssuerName>
</Issuer>

2. This brings me to an overall observation on empty elements. They abound.

> Sometimes an element is used as a container for other elements. For example, <Address>. This makes sense to me, since it sets off a set of other, related elements.
> Sometimes an element is used to hold a value. For example, <Title>. Makes sense, too.
> But sometimes an element is used merely as a container for attributes. Prime examples of this are the <IssuerID> and <IssuerName> above. This just looks like bad design to me.

Jon---thanks for this post....I have asked the folks involved in our Standards Tech group to weigh in on this....and expect to get a response shortly.

Jack Roehrig, Executive Director
RIXML.org

Thanks, Jack. Hope my post didn't sound disparaging. It wasn't meant to.

Thanks for your interest, Jon. I've reviewed your comments above, and I see your point. I'm not sure precisely how this particular design was chosen. It may even be just an artifact from conversion of the object model to XSD. RIXML is actually modeled in Rational Rose, initially, then output as XSD via some scripted automation. We're always happy to receive feedback and good ideas for improvements from interested parties.