[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly identifying the normative parts in the data dictionary
I fully agree with everything that you wrote below. Alessandro > -----Original Message----- > From: Dwarkanath, Sukumar [mailto:Sukumar_Dwarkanath@sra.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 00:09 > To: Timothy Grapes; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; Alessandro > Triglia; Lee Tincher > Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly > identifying the normative parts in the data dictionary > > Great discussion and some good points - I agree with Lee that > we should follow consistent naming and design rules, and the > NIEM NDR is a definitely a good resource. I think we have > spoken about this a few times before and we all agree in > principle that we need to focus on the next steps in pursuing it. > > > > From my perspective, the schema should be the authoritative > artifact for all the XML elements and structure. As I see it, > the data dictionary provides additional clarification, as > needed, and provides a high level overview to non-technical > users. The normative parts in the data dictionary are mainly > the business rules and definitions - the reason we include > the usage and other information is to ensure that this > information is conveyed to non-technical users as well - I > think this is important as it eases the burden on > practitioners and does not force them to review technical documents. > > > > The proposed suggestion is for the near term, and is a > compromise to respond to Alessandro's overall comments of > ensuring well defined compliance statements are well defined. > It is clear that none of us are in favor of delaying HAVE at > this point - so, we should decide on moving forward at the earliest. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Sukumar >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]