RE: Tag naming syntax

[Vincent Buller <vincent@and.nl>]

Thanks for the info, David.

I believe in using domain language unchanged as much as possible, hence my
disagreement with rules on a number of character limit or ad hoc
abbreviations (other than accepted acronyms).

In practice all DTD/Schema I've seen use English for their element and
attribute names, but that may be different in Canada :-)  No kidding, it
would make sense from a registry perspective to allow for multi-lingual
versions of schema, but with CIQ we're just not there yet. I assume these
IDs would be add-ons, perhaps in a different namespace (like xml:lang could
be added to any element?) and do not force us to create "registry compliant"
schema?

Let us take the "mandatory" OTA guidelines without the two restrictions I
don't feel comfortable with - that seems pretty lightweight to me, and
element names is what we have to deal with in the short term.

Vince


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:16 AM
> To: INTERNET:vincent.buller@and.com
> Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Ram Kumar'
> Subject: re: Tag naming syntax
>
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:vincent.buller@and.com
> >
> I believe we can take the mandatory rules, although I would
> personally not
> make an exception for PO_Box and just write POBox to put
> consistency over
> "readability".
>
> >From the other rules, I would like to scrap the 25 character
> limit. IMO
> it's
> more consistent to forego on all abbreviations except acronyms. So not
> allow
> PstBx, but do use POBox.
>
> About the typenames as suffix: I think its useful if used
> carefully, and it
> should not be enforced. A "Street" is a "Street", and not a
> "StreetString"
> or a "StreetName".
>
> Any comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Vince
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> There's some goofy things in the OTA rules.  The need is first and
> foremost to have natural and intuitive tags names.
>
> Too much emphasis is made on  tagnames - and particularly in the
> case of the OTA - the lack of a registry hamstrings the approach - so
> they even have version in the tagname - which is a mistake when
> looking for interoperability and long term maintainance.
>
> The ebXML approach is to use UID and External ID's as attributes
> in the DTD/Schema.
>
> This basically solves the problem completely.  Notice now you
> can use any tagname - including language translations - but still
> get back to the default semantics and definitions (the REAL need
> in business integration).
>
> I would strongly recommend a lightweight approach to
> tagnames - emphazing natural familiar names - and then
> using the UID to exactly label each element for referencing of
> the full definitions in an ebXML Registry as a CoreComponent
> reference.
>
> DW.
>
>