RE: English Language Tags

[John McClure <hypergrove@olympus.net>]

|The busy work factor is the most compelling for a neutral construct that
|is simple and unambiguous and allows people to use
|invoice.payment.date and payment.date.Invoice interchangably.  And
|it even supports UDEF too - for those who have already sunk $millions
|into that hole and want the save their investment.   Avoiding the
|re-tooling of existing implementations is another KEY factor here.

If the identifying number is one associated with an XML Schema definition
of the element-type, fine. However, it seems odd because I thought the idea
of ebXML is to implement Trading Partner Agreements, and I would certainly
suggest that a Trading Partner Agreement would clearly identify the URI of
the XSD containing the element-type definitions that are acceptable for
transactions occurring under the Trading Partner Agreement. Either
informaal or formal agreement is not on the individual element-types, but
on the namespace URIs.

With regard to the ease-of-use of allowing both

|invoice.payment.date and payment.date.Invoice interchangably.

I find it equally compelling to view these different names as a
user-interface issue, not a document interchange issue, because surely
you're not saying that element-types would be created by ebXML that have
names such as these!