Feature Description
The current repository contains JSON schemas for the input format. However, the legacy COMcheck website imports and exports files in XML format.
It would be helpful to also have the corresponding XML schema in the repository, so we can compare the legacy XML format with the current JSON schema.
Use Case
The main use case is to understand how the legacy XML fields map to the current JSON fields.
I noticed that some attribute names are slightly different between the two formats. For example, the XML uses:
cavityRvalue
But the corresponding JSON field appears to be:
cavityRValue
This specific difference may not be an issue if field names are compared case-insensitively.
However, there are also XML fields such as:
bldgUseType
I could not find a field with the same name in the JSON schema. It may be missing or represented by a different JSON field, but without the XML schema or an official field mapping, it is difficult to confirm.
Having the XML schema would make it easier to identify these differences and build a reliable XML-to-JSON mapping.
Proposed Solution
Add the legacy XML schema, preferably the XSD file used by the COMcheck website, to the repository.
It would also be useful to include a simple mapping or documentation showing how the XML attributes correspond to the JSON schema fields.
Alternatives Considered
Are there alternative solutions or workarounds you've considered?
Additional Context
One option is to infer the XML structure from files exported by the legacy COMcheck website. However, an exported file only shows the fields used in that particular project and may not represent the complete XML format.
Another option is to compare field names case-insensitively. This may solve differences such as cavityRvalue and cavityRValue, but it does not help with fields such as bldgUseType, which may be missing from the JSON schema or represented under a different name.
Note: This project does not accept external contributions. Feature requests are noted for consideration by the internal development team.
Feature Description
The current repository contains JSON schemas for the input format. However, the legacy COMcheck website imports and exports files in XML format.
It would be helpful to also have the corresponding XML schema in the repository, so we can compare the legacy XML format with the current JSON schema.
Use Case
The main use case is to understand how the legacy XML fields map to the current JSON fields.
I noticed that some attribute names are slightly different between the two formats. For example, the XML uses:
cavityRvalueBut the corresponding JSON field appears to be:
cavityRValueThis specific difference may not be an issue if field names are compared case-insensitively.
However, there are also XML fields such as:
bldgUseTypeI could not find a field with the same name in the JSON schema. It may be missing or represented by a different JSON field, but without the XML schema or an official field mapping, it is difficult to confirm.
Having the XML schema would make it easier to identify these differences and build a reliable XML-to-JSON mapping.
Proposed Solution
Add the legacy XML schema, preferably the XSD file used by the COMcheck website, to the repository.
It would also be useful to include a simple mapping or documentation showing how the XML attributes correspond to the JSON schema fields.
Alternatives Considered
Are there alternative solutions or workarounds you've considered?
Additional Context
One option is to infer the XML structure from files exported by the legacy COMcheck website. However, an exported file only shows the fields used in that particular project and may not represent the complete XML format.
Another option is to compare field names case-insensitively. This may solve differences such as
cavityRvalueandcavityRValue, but it does not help with fields such asbldgUseType, which may be missing from the JSON schema or represented under a different name.Note: This project does not accept external contributions. Feature requests are noted for consideration by the internal development team.