#33: The term "schema" is ambiguous.

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

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.
>