WG: languages and tags

[Hermes Hartmut <Hartmut.Hermes@MCH11.siemens.de>]

Dear all,

My colleague who has registered for ebXML Architecture group forwarded the attached communication to me.

I guess it is of interest for all of you who are not included in architecture distribution list.
Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Hartmut Hermes     
Siemens AG EL LP	   D-80286 Muenchen     
Tel: +49 89 9221 4564     Fax: +49 89 9221 3753 
Tel: +49 8233 600 222     Cellular phone: +49170 22 97 606  

If you want to get information on the Basic Semantic Register please visit:
http://forum.afnor.fr/afnor/WORK/AFNOR/GPN2/TC154WG1/index.htm <http://forum.afnor.fr/afnor/WORK/AFNOR/GPN2/TC154WG1/index.htm>  



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:	Goerke Stefan 
Gesendet am:	Dienstag, 14. März 2000 13:03
An:	Hermes Hartmut
Betreff:	WG: languages and tags



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:	jmotley@globaltechltd.com <mailto:jmotley@globaltechltd.com>  [SMTP:jmotley@globaltechltd.com] <mailto:[SMTP:jmotley@globaltechltd.com]> 
Gesendet am:	Dienstag, 14. März 2000 02:30
An:	Miller, Robert (GEIS)
Cc:	ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org> 
Betreff:	RE: languages and tags





Duane,

Sorry for jumping in.  I must agree with Bob.  I think he is corretly
distinguishing between meta data that should be placed in a schema (or DTD) and
the data itself.  As a developer of transactions that are used globally I would
much prefer to receive an XML document that meets a defined XML DTD (or better
yet schema).  The reason we feel so strongly about this is that If I want to
process, for example, a bill of lading that may be from a country with a
language that is different from the receiving party I would need versions of my
DTD in every language.  I would much prefer to have to deal with a normalized
set of tags.  From a source such as the ISO BSR.  I could then process the
document using my language and the semantic rules within my DTD (or schema).

If I receive a purchase order in Chinese (I am not Chinese), it is not english
readable.  If it were normalized in to a document that was tagged with standard
codes I could render it in the language of my choice.  Your note is not that it
is human readable, but that it is english readable, in the country, local and
lexicon of whoever is lucky enough to be the first author.

Sorry to interrupt,
John Motley






"Miller, Robert (GEIS)" <Robert.Miller@geis.ge.com <mailto:Robert.Miller@geis.ge.com> > on 03/13/2000 06:42:29 PM

To:   ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org> 
cc:    (bcc: jmotley/Globaltechltd)

Subject:  RE: languages and tags



Duane,

'Should' is not 'Shall' or 'Must'!

By the way, 'human-legible' is not defined in the XML 1.0 document.  I don't
consider 'human-legible' to be a synonym for 'human-readable'.  And the
sentence you quote is a design goal of the XML 1.0 syntax, not a design goal
of messages written in conformance with the XML 1.0 syntax. By my reckoning,
"<a123b2> ... </a123b2>" meets the XML 1.0 design goal in that it is human
legible - I didn't encounter any problems typing it on my keyboard. or in
viewing it on my screen, or in viewing it in printed copy.

The point I make in my original message is that it is of no good purpose to
standardize XML element tag names.  Rather, a well-known attribute must be
defined and used to achieve standardization.  I recognize that we will
likely define some XML element tag names, as perhaps in the transport work
group.  Other groups outside ebXML will define (and in the transport
instance, have defined) element tag names, and we can also expect that some
of these externally defined names will differ from our chosen names, for
elements having the same 'Semantic Identity'.  Fortuntely, it is a
relatively simple matter to extend/provide in the DTD for each of these
specifications the well known attribute and value that uniquely addresses
the 'Semantic Identity' of the element.

I do advocate use of 'human-readable' element tag names, but do so with an
awareness that element tag names in a global electronic commerce environment
are not globally unique.  In my scanning of the topic messages, I saw
consensus on 'readable' element tag names, but I did not see an
understanding, or in many messages even the recognition, that such consensus
does not address the 'Semantic Identity' issue.

Cheers,
        Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com] <mailto:[mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]> 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 4:35 PM
To: Miller, Robert (GEIS); ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org> 
Subject: RE: languages and tags


Bob:

Thank you.  Sorry we missed you on the conference call today.  Hope your
vacation was good.

<bob>
1) Element tag names may but need not be 'readable'.
     - Attributes & Presentation scripts can be used to provide
readability on demand
     - XML is intended to be processed by machines, not by humans.
That's why we view documents with browsers rather than with simple text
viewers.</bob>

The XML 1.0 Spec clearly states:
"...6. XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear..."

I think we have reached general consensus that the XML used within ebXML
should follow these guidelines.

Duane