Create a conformance clause that offers alternative ways to conform to the standard and be specific about what each type of conformance requires. Don't point to the schema and say be valid. Specified combinations are better for interoperablity.
Conformance clause has been added, but this may come back since it is not clear exactly what is meant by "alternative" ways to conform to the standard/specification.
"From the note:
""only messages that fully comply with the EDXL-HAVE 2.0 specification and that are complete and schematically valid may be referred to as a “EDXL-HAVE 2.0 Message”.""
only -> Only
""fully comply?"" Not defined.
""that are complete..."" Not defined.
""may"" - is this a requirement?
Is conformance something separate from being complete and schematically valid?
Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Hospital AVailability Exchange (HAVE) Version 2.0 CSPRD01