[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: #33: The term "schema" is ambiguous.
Works for me. I'm okay with intentionally conflating spml:schema, xsd:schema, and spmldsml:schema. Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: >My suggestions are: > >1) "XSD" as appropriate (as you suggested). For instance Core XSD, Password >Capability XSD, etc. > >2) "Target Schema Element" > >3) "Target Schema" > >I don't want to use the term "schemaWrapper". First it is not correct since >the spml:schema element could ref to an external schema by URN rather than >"wrapping" an included XML representation of the Target Schema. Second the >extra wording is unnecessary. Namespaces are the proper way to solve name >collisions. It is perfectly fine to have spml:schema, xsd:schema, and >spmldsml:schema. This correctly describes the fact that these are all >schemas in specific contexts. > >Jeff B > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gary P Cole [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] >Sent: Wed 5/25/2005 3:53 PM >To: Bohren, Jeffrey >Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: #33: The term "schema" is ambiguous. > > > >I agree that we should clarify (and qualify) our use of the term >"schema". We use the term "schema" to mean at least three different things: >1) the XSD for SPMLv2 core protocol and standard capabilities >2) the <spml:schema> element of an <spml:target>. >(This contains the <xsd:schema> and any number of ><supportedSchemaEntity> elements.) >3) the <xsd:schema> of a target. >(This is open content of the <spml:schema> element of an <spml:target>. > >I'd like to know what to call each of these. (I don't think the term >"provisioning schema" reduces confusion, since this term could still >apply to any of them.) I like the term "target schema" better, but that >could still apply to either #2 or #3. > >So, how about this? > >#1 we handle just by using the full name (e.g., "Core Schema" or >"Suspend Capability Schema"). >If it's better, we can say "Core XSD" and "Suspend Capability XSD". > >#2 we call the "target schema wrapper"). >Rename spml:SchemaType to spml:SchemaWrapperType >and rename spml:schema to spml:schemaWrapper. > >#3 we call the "target schema" (or "target PSO schema") >If we rename <spml:schema> to <spml:schemaWrapper>, >then "target schema" should be reasonably clear. > >Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: > > > >>2.1.3.1 – I would like to change the title from “Schema” to >>“Provisioning Schema”. Also everywhere we talk about the schema for a >>target, we should use the term “Target Provisioning Schema” or >>“Provisioning Schema” as appropriate. This will help alleviate the >>problem that the term schema is used for so many purposes. >> >> >> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]