Re: VS: langauges and tags

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Another argument for keeping it simple!

--
Matthew MacKenzie
CTO/VP R&D
XML Global Technologies, Inc.

At 10:38 AM 3/9/00 +0200, Matti.Vasara@fingrid.fi wrote:
>Dear All
>As a non english speaking native but a rather long experience of
>transforming things to one culture to another,  I strongly support, that the
>tags should be made by mnemonic english and translations to other languages
>(cultures) should be made separately by people who know the business and
>their culture. If ebXML should have the terms in many languages, you can add
>half year to the time of the work for every other language and more if the
>cultures are not so near another as those in Portugal and Russia.
>best wishes
>Matti Vasara
>
> > -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> > Lähettäjä:    David Burdett [SMTP:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> > Lähetetty:    9. maaliskuuta 2000 4:14
> > Vastaanottaja:        'Duane Nickull'; Troy R Lowe
> > Kopio:        ebXML-Architecture List; ebXML-TransportÉlists. oasis-open.
> > org
> > Aihe: RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
> >
> > Duane
> >
> > I agree. Let's assume English, right now, for all names while we develop
> > them, but actively encourage and support literal translations to other
> > languages such as French and Russian, if groups want to do it.
> >
> > You could then have a very simple utility that did the conversion from
> > language to another.
> >
> > By the way I think that an Invoice in France and Portugal apparantly has
> > to
> > written in the native language for it to be legally valid. So a
> > translation
> > utility might be very useful ... ;-) Can anyone in France or Portugal
> > confirm this.
> >
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:28 AM
> > To: Troy R Lowe
> > Cc: ebXML-Architecture List; ebXML-Transport@lists. oasis-open. org
> > Subject: RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
> >
> >
> > <Troy>
> > What group of humans? English speaking only? This is to enable what? XML
> > should
> >  not be seen by a human if it works.
> > </Troy>
> >
> > The UN, who is sponsoring the initiative, has three official languages.
> > They are English, Russian and French.
> >
> > It has been discussed that we may possibly adopt  a system where
> >
> > ELEMENT=(EnglishTerm || FrenchTerm || RussianTerm )
> >
> > The message structure should be reasonably intuitive.  This means that a
> > human being should be able to somewhat decifer a message.  This is very
> > important for manually constructed messages, error checking, archiving and
> > searching.  It also reduces the system architectural complexity.
> >
> > In short - I am totally against using numerical values for Elements.  We
> > do
> > not want to create another cryptic taxonomy.
> >
> > EXAMPLE:
> >
> > If you encounter:
> >
> > <ebXML>
> >   <Header>
> >      <From>Foo Inc.</From>
> >      <To>Bar Corp.</To>
> >   </Header>
> >   <Message Type="Index">
> >    Blah
> >   </Message>
> > </ebXML>
> >
> > OR:
> >
> > <ebXML>
> >   <En-tête>
> >      <Du>Foo Inc.</Du>
> >      <A>Bar Corp></A>
> >   </En-tête>
> >   <Communique Tapent="facture">
> >    Blah
> >   </Communique>
> > </ebXML>
> >
> > This is certainly more intuitive than
> >
> > <123>
> >   <3422-3>
> >      <993-44321-2>Foo Inc.<993-44321-2>
> >      <128-2>Bar Corp.</128-2>
> > ...
> >
> > You get the idea.
> >
> > Also - in the event that one of the elements was mal formed,  you would
> > need
> > a translation tool to verify the numerical equivalent of your elements.
> > Not
> > a good Idea.
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Matthew MacKenzie
CTO/VP R&D
XML Global Technologies, Inc.