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

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

Works for me. 
I'm okay with intentionally conflating spml:schema, xsd:schema, and 
spmldsml:schema.

Bohren, Jeffrey wrote:

>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. 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>