[xmlspif] Grouping 'like' categories using the name attribute in securityCategoryTagSet
- From: "Alan Borland" <Alan.Borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "XML SPIF List" <xmlspif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:40:49 -0000
I have an environment where the customer has defined a number of
projects named "Project1", "Project2", "Project3" etc. Each project has
a category OID assigned to it and on the user interface we'd like to
group all of the projects together in a single list-box. We'd end up
with a SPIF that may include the following:
<spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
<spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.0"
>
<spif:securityCategoryTag name=""
tagType="tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0"
maxSelection="1">
<spif:tagCategory name="Project1"
lacv="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project1"></spif:tagCategory>
</spif:securityCategoryTag>
</spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
<spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.1"
>
<spif:securityCategoryTag name=""
tagType="tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0"
maxSelection="1">
<spif:tagCategory name="Project2"
lacv="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project2"></spif:tagCategory>
</spif:securityCategoryTag>
</spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
<spif:securityCategoryTagSet name="PROJECTS" id="1.1.1.1.2"
>
<spif:securityCategoryTag name=""
tagType="tagType7" tag7Encoding="securityAttributes" minSelection="0"
maxSelection="1">
<spif:tagCategory name="Project3"
lacv="1" obsolete="false" xml:id="id_project3"></spif:tagCategory>
</spif:securityCategoryTag>
</spif:securityCategoryTagSet>
</spif:securityCategoryTagSets>
However, this will fail the schema check because we don't have unique
names for the 'name' attribute on the 'securityCategoryTagSet'
("PROJECTS"). This is what I was going to use to group 'like'
categories together on the user interface. I need an attribute that can
be used to 'group' similar categories together, the name seemed an easy
choice for me and wondered whether the unique constraints could be
removed from the schema, or a new 'group' attribute created?
Any thoughts?
Alan.
Alan Borland
Technical Architect
Boldon James Limited, a QinetiQ company
Mobile: +44 (0)7810 556709
Direct: +44 (0)1270 507841
Switch: +44 (0)1270 507800
Email: alan.borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:alan.borland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.boldonjames.com
<x-excid://7DBF0000/pas:x-excid:/7DC00001/jmp:http:/www.boldonjames.com/
>
Other related posts:
