Re: OTA Tag name rules

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

This happened a year ago (Namespaces where not the norm,
imature, or not desired) so the details of discussion are not fresh.
The issues center around the fact that the DTD name space is flat.
OTA needs to have
the CarRental group progress through time with increasing releases
at a different pace than the Airline group. Prefixing the tag names
to provide context and avoid collision is one approach to this problem.
As the technology advances, some of this is being reconsidered for the next
rev.

I am not suggesting adopting these conventions, but these are some of the
issues.

Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Sam Hunting <shunting@ecomxml.com> on 09/28/2000 02:57:39 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: OTA Tag name rules



> Prefixes will use a period (.) as a separator.

Are there advocates for this practice on ebXML?

> Example: <v1.Cust.Pay.CreditCard>
> OTA's tag naming conventions include the specification version and
content
> hierarchy as prefixes and, as a result, will require greater bandwidth to
transmit than tags with
> more cryptic codes. OTA made the decision to include this much text in
the
tags
> so OTA could convert the data model to XML-Schema as
> easily as possible. XML-Schema will not need the context or hierarchy
included in the tag
> names, which will reduce their size.

Is there anyone on the list privy to these discussions?

    (1)  What is the "context or hierarchy" involved that can't be
expressed
by more typical nested containment?

    (2) Why can't the "context or hierarchy" be expressed in DTDs as
opposed
to schemas?

    (3) Why put the "context or hierarchy" in the element names?

Thanks in advance.