Best Practices Document

[StaceySchwabenlander]

Good afternoon. The eCVI Standards Subcommittee (a subcommittee of the National Assembly's Traceability and Technology Committee) met recently and found that an eCVI provider had some issues with name space designations in the XML. While this is not a violation of the schema, there was a discussion that it may be helpful for the USAHA/AAVLD CAHSIS subcommittee (I forget what we renamed ourselves) to develop a 'Best Practices Document' that could assist in educating eCVI providers regarding topics such as this (best use of name space designations), to clarify and streamline the schema. This document could be housed here and providers could be directed to it for clarification on any appropriate topics this subcommittee feels would be helpful to represent within the best practices document.

[mkm1879]

I have put together a VERY rough draft of such a document. It is in Supplemental in the pendingChanges branch. Binary files like Word are not well supported in Git so you may need to download. Any volunteers to rewrite as .md so it can display here better?

https://github.com/AAVLD-USAHA-ITStandards/eCVI/blob/pendingChanges/Supplemental/XML%20Namespace%20Best%20Practices.docx

[jconlon]

I would suggest that we use Markdown language:

1. Native text publishing language for GitHub (and many other systems)
2. Markdown is simple to use
3. Easy to version control - because its in text
4. Many text processing converters to export other formats
5. It will visualize nicely in github or many other systems
6. Rich markup and styling

[jconlon]

@mkm1879 did you get the email I sent you with the attached MarkDown file I created Practises.doc? Could not attach it to this issue.

[SusanCulpDVM]

@StaceySchwabenlander thank you for sharing the eCVI Data Standards WG - Supplemental Information google doc with this group on May 13th. If anyone has questions or comments about the link or document shared, we can discuss on the meeting today.

[mkm1879]

Along with any other suggestions from reviewers, I have some specific questions/thoughts. The word document is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qwf7EpTK-vL17fEWNgwH-EfPmb8vxotz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117212872476935046266&rtpof=true&sd=true

Does semi-chatty first person work? Should it be more formal? More conversational?

Does selection of typefaces work? Are there better combinations?

Do we need to list XML editors, libraries, add-ons, etc.?

I need clarification to add more detail on ReplacesCVI, specifically in Voided CVIs is ReplacesCVINumber blank, or is it the original CVI number?

Define the “land” Transport Mode. How is it different from the others?

Make national accreditation number required but allow “Exempt”?

Only US addressed for field accessions. Are there any edge cases of listing a recent test performed in say, Canada, prior to import in a subsequent interstate movement?

InspectionDate is optional in GroupLot. This was a simple editing error?

Should ResultType be refactored to put minOccurs in the choice?

Should I add a list of very common MIME types or would that be distracting? What about another appendix?

Need clear descriptions of Feeding to condition and Feeding to slaughter.

What is the IMP TagType? How can I not know this?

I need an extensive explanation of how the NPIP movements in Movement are to be implemented.

Why is SightingDate in Sighting optional? Use case?

Why no Sighting of GroupLot?

Someday…refactor all the “others” similar to SpeciesCode, SpeciesOther?

I have mixed “committee”, “working group”, and “workgroup.” Is that confusing or help keep the document conversational.

[mkm1879]

Thanks to some very helpful early feedback, I've done fairly extensive rearrangement and some rewriting of the first part of the guide. Rather than try to duplicate all in the currently on-line copy, I've renamed the prior draft and posted a new one. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TYymTD40DpfJcsFOpVWJDP3mmzhhpKOs/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117212872476935046266&rtpof=true&sd=true

[mkm1879]

Not sure if my eCVI "Book" goes here or in #89 I've done some more, mostly small, edits. The "commenter" link to the document on Google Docs is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOxXVUcM5VsoiWO-lRoBF6Rcs2aYKevA/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117212872476935046266&rtpof=true&sd=true