OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-lcsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: Position Paper on List Containers

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Anthony B. Coates wrote:

>>This doesn't suggest any kind of problem with lists, though, 
>>it simply points out that one of the naming rules has the wrong 
>>effect when applied to lists, and needs to be changed.  

It depends on what judicial criteria you are using to
carry out this assessment of whether lists/containers
are useful:  assume a new idea is useful until proven 
otherwise, or assume no value added until proven otherwise.  

On a personal view, I haven't insisted on proponents to 
illustrate with concrete proofs of efficiency (viewing ease 
is a subjective criteria to debate and that will end only in 
bloodshed).  So I hope you won't start suggesting that 
"doesn't suggest any kind of problem with lists" means we 
should accept it until proven  otherwise,  The very dubious 
claim about advantages of lists so far has been that there 
ARE advantages, without proofs and that we shouldn't doubt 
it.  Subjectively, the "feel" of having containers is perhaps
right, just like we might be inclined to feel that the earth
is flat from our own horizons.

On a probably unfair basis, the team went ahead to see if
perhaps containers were indeed useful.  If that hadn't been
true, there is no need to even try out "selected list" model, 
since that isn't required by the container rules.  If that
hadn't been true, there's no need to perform on-the-fly
fixing of naming clashes at schema level brought about by
the rules in order to generate sample instances.

What the paper has found has been that there are no visible 
advantages as claimed.

>>It would be wrong to abandon lists purely because the
>>naming rules have an unexpectedly perverse effect.

I think what would be wrong is to allow any doubtful areas
of naming to infiltrate into the designs that eventually
lead to systematic incompatibilities and naming clashes.

If naming is such a casual thing, we probably don't need NDR.

Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]