RE: [sarif] "namespaced" vs. "hierarchical"

["Larry Golding \(Comcast\)" <larrygolding@comcast.net>]

The updated change draft for #162 is now available.

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:10 AM
To: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sarif] "namespaced" vs. "hierarchical"

 

Michael agreed with this change. I’m going to make the change in the Change Draft for #162. I consider it to fall under editorial discretion (it’s just spec language terminology, it doesn’t even affect any property names).

 

Larry

 

From: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 3:49 PM
To: sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sarif] "namespaced" vs. "hierarchical"
Importance: High

 

I suggest that we use the term “hierarchical” rather than “namespaced” to refer to those string values in the spec¹ of the form “component [ / component ]…”. My reasoning is:

 

1. There is no such English word as “namespaced.” Even reference sources like Wikipedia and MSDN, when describing namespaces, don’t use this form. Google search doesn’t find it anywhere.
2. Even granting the coinage, IMO “hierarchical” better conveys the semantics.
3. We already use “namespace” in the spec to mean something else (it’s an example of a logical location kind, and it shows up in lots of examples).

 

Thoughts?

 

This isn’t blocking me. I can write the change draft for #162 with “namespaced” and a search-and-replace will do the trick if necessary.

 

Larry

 

¹ properties.tags, run.stableId, and after #162, run.automationId.