Re: OTA Tag name rules

[Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>]

That is a good question. And an appropriate one.
I don't have the answer to that, but I remain
confident that Architecture is not the place.
I think that Architecture has already bitten
off enough.

At 02:23 PM 9/29/00 -0700, Sam Hunting wrote:
>And common coding style across ebXML DTDs should be discussed where?
>
>S.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>
>To: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>
>Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>; "Sam Hunting"
><shunting@ecomxml.com>; "Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM" <srh@us.ibm.com>;
><ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:21 AM
>Subject: RE: OTA Tag name rules
>
>
>> Why is this even being discussed in this Working Group?
>> Architecture, as far as I can tell, has no responsibility
>> for deciding these details.
>>
>> At 11:09 AM 9/29/00 -0700, Krishna Sankar wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> > I agree. Adding version numbers to tag names is not optimal.
>> >
>> > Can we not add the VersionNumber as an attribute - something like
>> ><Cust.Pay.CreditCard VersionNumber="1.0">, so that whoever wants to use
>> >version numbers can use them and it does not break the stylesheets et al.
>> >
>> > cheers
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:49 AM
>> >To: Sam Hunting
>> >Cc: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
>> >Subject: Re: OTA Tag name rules
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Sam Hunting wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Prefixes will use a period (.) as a separator.
>> >>
>> >> Are there advocates for this practice on ebXML?
>> >>
>> >> > Example: <v1.Cust.Pay.CreditCard>
>> >
>> >Yech! Putting the version in the tag name seems to me to
>> >be a colossal mistake. I could see adding a version attribute
>> >to each element (possibly) but having different tag names
>> >would necessarily require code modifications if in nothing
>> >other than XSLT stylesheets. Not a good idea, IMHO. I certainly
>> >would hope that ebXML would NOT adopt this practice or standard!
>> >
>> >> > 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?
>> >
>> >Good question!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>     (2) Why can't the "context or hierarchy" be expressed in DTDs as
>> >opposed
>> >> to schemas?
>> >
>> >Good question
>> >
>> >>
>> >>     (3) Why put the "context or hierarchy" in the element names?
>> >
>> >Yes, indeed! What ever for!
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance.
>> >
>> >--
>> >    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
>> >   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
>> >  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
>> >       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
>> >_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>