[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly identifying thenormative parts in the data dictionary
I also agree with everything in principle, but we need to remember to use the word "conformance" not "compliance." It is easy to confuse the two, but OASIS has chosen the word "conformance" and we need to be consistent in using it to avoid allowing any chance for confusion to slip into our discussions. I am sure we mean the same thing, but semantics can get skewed all too easily. Other than that, me too! Cheers, Rex At 11:10 AM -0400 9/29/07, Alessandro Triglia wrote: >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 >> -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]