RE: #33: The term "schema" is ambiguous.

["Bohren, Jeffrey" <Jeff_Bohren@bmc.com>]

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. 
>