HUD XML 3.0 Standard Clarification: Household Element

[Darin Patterson]

I am currently working collaboratively with a community partner to
simultaneously test their XML 3.0 Export and our XML 3.0 Import.
We've come across a question related to the intended use of the
household element, described in detail below. Can anyone provide
clarification for the intent?


The household element includes: a unique household ID, zero or more
Head of Household IDs, as well as zero or more members listed
underneath the Household element. The question is which of the
following rules apply:

- A person who is identified as the head of household should be listed
as the “head of household ID” AND listed as a member

OR

- A person who is identified as the head of household should be listed
as the “head of household ID”, but NOT listed as a member (there is no
additional information that would be gained by doing so).

The standard includes a “member relationship” for each member to
identify their relationship to head of household and there is no
“self” as relationship available, so I assume that the head of
household shouldn't be included as a member, but the standard doesn't
require a relationship to be identified, so it is feasible that it is
expected to simply include them in the member list and not identify
the relationship.

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Eric Jahn]

Darin,

Glad to hear you are moving forward with support for the schema! Since
RelationshipToHeadOfHousehold is not required,

<xsd:element name="RelationshipToHeadOfHousehold" type="hmis:fourVal"
minOccurs="0">

, just omit this element if the person is the HeadOfHousehold. In fact,
as you mentioned, if they are the HeadOfHousehold, there is no need to
even include a Member element, since it adds nothing aside from the
RelationshipToHeadOfHousehold, at least in the current version. So your
second stated option of "... OR, A person who is identified as the head

of household should be listed as the “head of household ID”, but NOT
listed as a member (there is no additional information that would be

gained by doing so)..." is correct. This finer point should be added to
the docs, so I made a ticket for that at: http://is.gd/jAmJdQ , so it
gets taken into account when a future revision comes out. -Eric Jahn