RE: [ubl] Question regarding final NDR

["Jim Wilson" <jim.wilson@kcx.com>]

I'm not sure that I understand the issue quite right, but I suggest to
not use acronyms for namespaces in the NDR document unless they actually
occur in the schemas. I can't say that I feel strongly about this
though.

Regards,
Jim Wilson 

-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 4:20 PM
To: Ubl List (E-mail)
Subject: [ubl] Question regarding final NDR

Folks,

Right now, the NDR has multiple occurrences of various CCTS terms
represented in the following fashion:

	ccts:BasicCoreComponents
	ccts:AggregateCoreComponents
	ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntities
	ccts:AggregateBusinessInformationEntities
	ccts:Datatypes
	ccts:CoreComponentTypes
	etc. etc.

Acronyms such as ccts:BCC, ccts:ACC, ccts:ABIE currently are not used.
This was done to ensure clarity each time these terms occur.  My
question is this - is the general consensus that I should preserve
clarity through the absence of the use of acronyms, or should I shorten
the document by the liberal use of acronyms?

Mark 


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup
.php.