RE: [emergency] Naming Conventions

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: RE: [emergency] Naming Conventions

For Human Physical Descriptions, as pointed out in HumanML, the

public safety industry by and large relies on standard descriptors

that are not at the level of detail as in the medical industry.  Overlaps

there will have to be handled because the records systems for

public safety (ie, police RMS) don't need the level of detail of

medical.  I'd be surprised if that changes.   That was one

reason for the use of abstract types in the HumanML schema.

The best we could do was pop up a metalevel and provide

supertypes, so to speak.  I note that JusticeXML appears to

have taken a similar path, and I think that is what Elliott

may be pointing to.  Naming conventions, per se, won't

fix the problem of having two concrete types that really

are different types.

 

Sorry to belabor this.  All I meant to convey was that

vocabulary based standards are reasonable, but the

more one imports and includes the greater the likelihood

of collisions if the domains are not aligned.   It isn't always

practical to take schemas from a different industry/domain

and attempt to factor it into another. That is why the

planning documents for a schema project of any kind

have to be quite specific about the domain, and not,

as is traditional in some projects, written purposefully

vague.  One should not late bind domains.

 

Good Friday to all.

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

Thanks for the input Len. Your experience is valuable, as usual. My own concerns in this arena have been fairly limited to the overlaps with HumanML (especially the Medical connection) and GEOVRML, and providing new kinds of tools, i.e. 3D tools, that will use the standards this TC develops, among others.

I had not given the database issue much thought, but what you say makes sense.