RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Proposed Modification to [ELN4] - ASBIE Naming

[Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>]

Tim,

BTW: Personally, I *may* be leaning towards your method of, where appropriate, simply having the element that represents the ASBIE reference the ABIE that it is associated to.

I have a theory. I think part of the problem is that we refer to the elements themselves as ABIEs, ASBIEs, etc. when, in fact, they are not. They are the XML mapping/representation of the BIEs in the syntax neutral model. Because ABIEs cannot contain other ABIEs in the SNM, there is resistance to letting an element representing an ABIE contain another element representing an ABIE in our XML binding, which is what you are doing.

I believe that by referencing an element, rather than declaring another element of the same type, you are placing that referenced element (documentation and all) into the content model of the containing element. Therefore, I'm not sure it is correct to reference an element whose documentation indicates it is an ABIE and call it (in its own documentation) an ASBIE. You are mapping an ASBIE in the SNM to an element that represents an ABIE. Again, I'm not sure this is totally wrong, it's just not what was intended by the rule.

Does any of this make sense? Or am I totally off the wall? (or both?)

MikeG