Add AuditCycles

[JieXiong9119]

Any background context you want to provide?

FEMP CERL use case

What does this PR do?

See proposal

How should this be manually tested?

What are the relevant tickets?

466

Screenshots (if appropriate)

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119, Could we add more metadata elements to the new auc:AuditCycle element, e.g., the audit cycle name, the reporting juristdiction, etc. (or, dare I suggest it, an auc:UserDefinedFields child element)?

[JieXiong9119]

@JieXiong9119, Could we add more metadata elements to the new auc:AuditCycle element, e.g., the audit cycle name, the reporting juristdiction, etc. (or, dare I suggest it, an auc:UserDefinedFields child element)?

Is it possible to map the cycle name to its ID? Is a Note field good for reporting jurisdiction? Sure I can add UDF as child.

[markborkum]

Is it possible to map the cycle name to its ID?

In Audit Template, yes. A database constraint ensures that audit cycle names are unique (within the scope of a given reporting jurisdiction). At import, the tool would find the //auc:Report/auc:UserDefinedFields/auc:UserDefinedField[auc:FieldName = 'Audit Template Report Type']/auc:FieldValue element and resolve the corresponding reporting jurisdiction. Then, it is straightforward to resolve the audit cycle by its name.

Is a Note field good for reporting jurisdiction?

This is a question for CERL. Currently, the report type and audit cycle name are sufficient to identify the reporting jurisdiction and audit cycle, respectively. If additional metadata are requested by CERL, it could be exported from Audit Template using the auc:UserDefinedFields element.

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum Check this update out!

[JieXiong9119]

Could the new auc:AuditCycles element be a child of the auc:Facility element (instead of the auc:Report element)?

This way, the same audit cycle could be referenced by multiple reports in the same XML document, e.g., using a new auc:LinkedAuditCycle element:

<auc:Facility ID="facility1">
  <!-- ... -->
  <auc:AuditCycles>
    <auc:AuditCycle ID="cycle1">
      <auc:AuditCycleName>Example Audit Cycle</auc:AuditCycleName>
      <auc:AuditCycleStartYear>2023</auc:AuditCycleStartYear>
      <auc:AuditCycleEndYear>2025</auc:AuditCycleEndYear>
    </auc:AuditCycle>
  </auc:AuditCycles>
  <!-- ... -->
  <auc:Reports>
    <auc:Report ID="report1">
      <!-- ... -->
      <auc:LinkedAuditCycle IDref="cycle1">
        <auc:YearOfAuditCycle>1</auc:YearOfAuditCycle>
      </auc:LinkedAuditCycle>
      <!-- ... -->
    </auc:Report>
  </auc:Reports>
  <!-- ... -->
</auc:Facility>

That's a good idea, but Iwould prefer to put it under auc:site (and probably auc:Building as well) instead of auc:Facility. How do you think of that?

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119, Being a child element of auc:Facility is preferred because it would align with the implementation for other top-level concepts that are referenced at lower levels in the XML tree. Other child elements of auc:Facility include: auc:Systems, auc:Schedules, auc:Measures, and auc:Contacts.

[JieXiong9119]

@JieXiong9119, Being a child element of auc:Facility is preferred because it would align with the implementation for other top-level concepts that are referenced at lower levels in the XML tree. Other child elements of auc:Facility include: auc:Systems, auc:Schedules, auc:Measures, and auc:Contacts.

Make sense. I'll modify and update soon.

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum Check the updates! I enable multiple AuditCycles to be referred via auc:LinkedAuditCycles\auc:LinkedAuditCycle.

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119, The latest changes look good, thanks.

Can we work on the xs:documentation elements next, please? The flavor text should align with that of other, preexisting XML elements in the schema.

• AuditCycleType - We need to define the term "audit cycle". For some organizations, such as CERL or FEMP, it refers to a period of time in which multiple audits may be conducted; whereas, for others, it refers to the multi-step process of actually conducting a single audit.
• AuditCycleName - Looking at a similarly named element, like auc:PremisesName, this should be something like "Name identifying the audit cycle."
• AuditCycleNotes - Looking at auc:PremisesNotes, this should be something like "Details about the audit cycle."
• AuditCycleStartYear - Looking at auc:AssessmentYear, this should be something like "Year the audit cycle starts, inclusive. (CCYY)"
• AuditCycleEndYear - Looking at auc:AssessmentYear, this should be something like "Year the audit cycle ends, inclusive. (CCYY)"
• LinkedAuditCycle - Looking at auc:LinkedHeatingPlantID, this should be something like "ID number of AuditCycle for this report."
• YearOfAuditCycle - Looking at auc:YearOfManufacture, the "Year" and "YearOf" prefixes indicate that the content of the element is a xs:gYear literal. We should consider redefining the content of this element to be a xs:gYear (for consistency) or renaming this element to indicate that the content is a positive integer, e.g., IndexedYearOfAuditCycle.

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum Description updated!

[JieXiong9119]

Hey @markborkum , would you be able to review it before our deadline of BuildingSync 6/30 milestone tomorrow?

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119,

For some organizations, such as CERL or FEMP, it refers to a period of time in which multiple audits may be conducted; whereas, for others, it refers to the multi-step process of actually conducting a single audit.

I didn't intend for that text to be used verbatim. I meant that we need to choose one definition (most likely, the "period of time" definition, but we would need to confirm this with CERL and/or FEMP).

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119, To align with the documentation for other elements, can we change the definition for the AuditCycle element to: "A period of time in which multiple audits may be conducted."

Also, please update the proposal so that the examples match the renamed XML elements (e.g., replace YearOfAuditCycle with IndexYearOfAuditCycle).

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum Check out the update!

[markborkum]

@JieXiong9119, According to GitHub, the last commit, 755fa64554aeb31478c5f62aeb0ad5c03f21a4f7, was yesterday.

[JieXiong9119]

@markborkum It's weird that I can see it through commits but not in the PR. I reverted the commit and pushed a new one. Can you see it now?