Re: [election-services] Language Binding Generators

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Richard J Cardone <richcar@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> RC> I see your point with regard to adding another schema.  As far as simple
> and clear goes, I still believe defining <EML> differently in some 28 schema
> files tends to make EML semantics less clear.  If the overloaded <EML>
> definition didn't complicate the use of language binding generators, the
> point would be academic and reasonable people could differ.

Forgive the intrusion into your back-and-forth...

The first thing I think of when reading the above is, "Well, how do
other OASIS TC's handle this in their work?"  I looked at a few other
TCs (not very many... like 3) and those used a uniform top-level
element.  So, then I wonder "Is this because they have 'things' for
which a single top-level element makes sense?"  For example, CIQ uses
"Party" as their element... but I'm not sure if they deal with things
as complicated as we do.

For sure, while DW may now what the 100-600 series of EML do, I
don't... (maybe it's time I spent more time with the XSDs, docs and
other stuff!) best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/